All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:01
The Bernie Moment | Ep. 931
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We bid a fond farewell to Cory Booker.
Elizabeth Warren drops an anvil on Bernie Sanders' hand.
We examine Bernie's political history.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Your data is your business.
Protect it at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
All righty, tonight is the very last Democratic debate until the next Democratic debate, but it is the last one until Iowa.
And right now, Joe Biden is the man who is apparently in the lead in Iowa, according to a Monmouth University poll released on Monday.
According to Bloomberg, Biden is on top in Iowa as more voters say they have firmly decided on their choice.
Biden is currently ahead with 24 percent support, up five points from the same poll in November.
Bernie Sanders is in second place with 18 percent, virtually tied with Pete Buttigieg at 17 and with Elizabeth Warren at 15.
Biden has been at the top of most Iowa polls, though Sanders has had the lead in a Des Moines Register CNN MediaCom poll released on Friday with 20%.
Biden was fourth in that poll with 15% support.
The Monmouth poll is notable because 43% of respondents said they are firmly decided on their top choice.
That is up from 28% in November.
As people are firming up their choices.
They are finally settling on Joe Biden.
I've said for a while here that Joe Biden feels a lot like Mitt Romney in 2012.
In 2012, Mitt Romney was the presumptive Republican nominee when he jumped into the race.
He had, of course, come in second to John McCain in 2008.
And then over the course of the race, people fell out of love with Mitt Romney over and over and over.
Everybody got a chance at the top of that wheel of fortune.
Every single person, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, everybody got a chance in 2012.
And then finally, everybody kind of went, OK, I guess we'll give it to Romney.
It seems like that may be happening with Joe Biden.
In recent weeks, Biden has sought to revive a flagging operation in Iowa, spending more time in the state and outlaying more on online and TV ads ahead of the February 3rd caucus.
Biden's frontrunner status in this poll could cause him to come under fire from his rivals on Tuesday as six Democratic candidates meet in Des Moines for the final debate before the caucuses, along with Warren Sanders and Buttigieg.
He faces Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, And billionaire activist Tom Steyer.
Steyer is showing some signs of life in the early states after a huge amount of spending.
Amy Klobuchar has never been able to really catch fire.
The poll also revealed more about who voters would support as a second choice, according to Bloomberg.
Under Iowa caucus rules, supporters of candidates who don't receive at least 15% on the first round actually have to switch to a viable candidate so the second picks of supporters could prove important.
So let's say that 8% of people vote for Tom Steyer.
Well, now they have to switch.
Who are they going to switch to?
Warren leads for second choice.
23% said they would pick her if their first choice did not make the cut.
Up from 17% in November, Buttigieg was virtually tied with Sanders at 15 and 14% respectively.
Biden was the second choice of only 10%.
In other words, it seems as though everybody who is voting for Biden, he is their first choice.
There are not a lot of people who are thinking, okay, well, if Warren falls out, I'm moving over to Biden.
If Warren drops out, then probably that goes to Sanders.
If Sanders drops out, that goes to Warren.
If Buttigieg drops out, that probably breaks between all the various candidates.
But When pollsters asked likely caucus goers who they would pick if the only viable candidates in their caucus site were in the top four, Biden sat at 28%, Buttigieg at 25%, Sanders at 24%, Warren at 16%.
And one person who will not be taking part in the Iowa caucuses is, of course, Cory Booker, to whom we bid a fond farewell.
We say goodbye to Mr. Potato Head.
Cory Booker, there were good times.
There were bad times.
Mostly, there were potato times.
Cory Booker would go around popping those angry eyes, blink deliberately, and then tell you.
How seriously he took everything in the world.
Well, he released a video explaining that he was very sad to drop out.
This, of course, has prompted the usual spasms of apoplexy from all of the people in the media who are now firmly convinced that Democrats are racist again.
This part I like.
I will say that I am enjoying.
The perpetual revolution promised by the intersectional advocates.
The way this works is that if Democrats elect a black president twice, if they nominate a black guy with no actual record over Hillary Clinton in 2008, and then he becomes president and then they do it again in 2012, That doesn't matter anymore.
As long as you're not nominating a black guy this time, that means that you're a racist.
It's sort of how the Oscars work also.
It doesn't matter that Lupita Nyong'o actually won an Oscar for 12 Years a Slave in 2014.
She wasn't nominated this year.
That means that the Academy is racist.
It doesn't matter that Greta Gerwig was nominated At the 2018 Oscars for Lady Bird, she wasn't nominated for Little Women.
That means the Academy is sexist.
Well, it's the same thing inside the Democratic Party.
Cory Booker ain't on the stage.
Kamala Harris ain't on the stage.
That means, of course, that the Democratic Party is racist, and I am here for it, straight into my veins.
Here is Cory Booker announcing that his candidacy is over.
I will say that the music in this farewell video does not really match the moment.
It really sounds as though it's an ad for some sort of tractor company, but here is Cory Booker.
I'm suspending my campaign for president with the same spirit with which it began.
It is my faith in us.
My faith in us together as a nation.
That we share common pain and common problems that can only be solved With a common purpose and a sense of common cause.
So now I recommit myself to the work.
I can't wait to get back on the campaign trail and campaign as hard as I can for whoever is the eventual nominee and for candidates up and down the ballot.
Aww, that's so sad.
I mean, what's Rosario Dawson gonna do now?
She had this whole big campaign to her plan, and now I guess she's just gonna have to go back and be like a fringe character on Daredevils.
That's kind of sad.
Well, we bid a fond farewell again to Mr. Potato Head, and we hope that he always keeps with him his anger.
In a second, we'll get to the democratic debate itself.
First, let us talk about the reality, which is that as you grow older, gentlemen, the chances are that you're going to start losing your hair.
I know because my father lost his hair, started losing his hair in like his late 30s, early 40s.
And the truth is that a huge number of Americans start losing their hair by the time they are 35.
The good news with today's advancements in science keeps offers proven treatments that can combat the symptoms of hair loss and help you keep the hair that you have at half the cost of your local pharmacy.
And this is one of those things where you really have to work on prevention because there ain't really a great answer.
Once all your hair is gone, it ain't coming back.
Keeps will help you keep the hair that you have, which is why they call themselves Keeps.
Keeps offers generic versions of the only two FDA-approved hair loss products out there.
Some of you may have tried them before, probably never for this price.
Plus, Keeps now offers a prescription shampoo that keeps your scalp healthy as well.
Prevention is key, and Keeps treatments really do work.
They're up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.
The sooner you start using Keeps, the more hair you will save.
So, go act fast right now.
Many men do experience some hair growth with Keeps treatment.
Find out why Keeps has more 5-star reviews than any of its competitors.
And nearly 100,000 men trust Keeps for their hair loss prevention medication.
Keeps treatments start at just $10 a month plus for a limited time.
You get that first month for free.
If you're ready to take action, go to keeps.com slash ben to receive your first month of treatment for free.
That is K-E-E-P-S dot com slash ben K-E-E-P-S.
Okay, so as I say, the media are very upset now that Cory Booker is out.
They didn't care about him when he was running, but now they're very upset about it.
Yamiche Alcindor, commenting on MSNBC, she suggested, of course, that now it's an all-white Democratic debate.
These racist, racist Democrats who are all white.
So white.
Now, what's weird about that is the notion that minority voters only vote for minority candidates, which, of course, is untrue.
If you look at the Democratic caucuses, one of the big problems for Cory Booker and Kamala Harris is that black voters have overwhelmingly resonated to Joe Biden, who's about as white as white can be.
But the idea here is that Democratic voters overall are racist if they didn't somehow prop up a candidate of color into the final Sort of.
Four.
Here is Yamiche Alcindor, PBS NewsHour White House Correspondent, talking about how this is an all-white debate, and expect to hear a lot of that today.
Now that Cory Booker is out, you really have one African-American contender left.
That's Deval Patrick.
And then you have Andrew Yang, both of which have not qualified for the next debate.
So the next debate at this point is going to be an overwhelmingly white debate, a white, all-white debate.
And there are a lot of Democratic voters that are wondering if the Democrats are going to continue to rely on African-American voters, and specifically African-American women, for their loyalty, how they're going to continue to make that case while not having a field that looks like the voters are trying to get.
They're gonna bully one of these candidates into picking Kamala Harris's VP, aren't they?
I mean, that's the way this is going to work.
They're gonna bully Joe Biden into picking Kamala Harris, who he can't stand, or Cory Booker, who has been running for VP for several months here, as a candidate, just because we can't have too many women.
Very, very bad.
Too many white people.
But as I say, I will enjoy it while all of these candidates profess their deep upset at the fact that minority candidates have not been more successful in the 2020 race.
It reminds me of this very famous novel by Arthur Kessler called Darkness at Noon.
The entire novel It's about a Soviet apparatchik who had fought in the Russian Revolution and then had served under Stalin.
He's eventually made the target of the revolution during the 1938 purges and he finds himself in jail.
His choice is whether to confess to treason, which he knows is not true, or to stand up to the regime.
He chooses to confess to treason because he has to go along with the program, even if the program eats him.
And that's exactly the Democratic Party at this point.
You're going to see all of these Democrats who know that they are not racist proclaiming that their party is indeed racist because Kamala Harris and Cory Booker aren't on that stage.
Meanwhile, intersectionality fight breaking out now between two very white people, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
So they are going after each other.
Last night, Elizabeth Warren tried to drop a bomb on Bernie Sanders.
And this is really egregious.
I mean, I cannot stand Elizabeth Warren.
She is just the worst.
The reason that she is just the worst is because she pretends that she is as honest and true as the day is long.
The truth is that she has sold every one of the political principles she held in about 2003.
She's thrown them out the window in order to run as Bernie Sanders light.
And then she pretended she was Bernie Sanders, his friend throughout this campaign, and the two of them laid off each other.
And honestly, I think Bernie Sanders, as you will see in just a moment, is just an egregious, awful politician.
He has terrible, terrible views.
I think that he is back to the worst regimes on planet Earth.
I think he currently.
The hobnobs with some of the worst anti-Semites in Congress.
I mean, he's just, he's just terrible.
But, compared to Elizabeth Warren, at least the man's honest.
So last night, Elizabeth Warren, after spending years proclaiming falsely to choose a Native American, Drops a story.
She leaks this story that when she and Bernie Sanders met in December 2018, Bernie Sanders told her he didn't think that a woman could win the presidency.
CNN reported this.
The stakes were high when Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren met at Warren's apartment in Washington, D.C.
one evening in December 2018.
The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president.
The two agreed that if ultimately they face each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another so as not to hurt the progressive movement.
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she'd be a strong candidate.
She could make a robust argument about the economy, and she could earn broad support from female voters.
Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
No, you can't say that.
You can't say that.
Oh my god.
Okay, so first of all, Does Bernie Sanders truly believe that a woman could not win the presidency?
No.
Bernie Sanders has been saying for years that he thinks that a woman could certainly be president.
In 1988, he said a woman could be president.
It is now 2020, so it is now 32 years later, and Bernie Sanders, I mean, he had like a little more hair then, but he feels like the high school principal in Back to the Future.
Did that guy ever have hair?
Anyway, here's Bernie Sanders in 1988 explaining that a woman could be president.
The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man.
In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States.
The real issue is, whose side are you on?
Are you on the side of workers and poor people, or are you on the side of big money and the corporation?
That is a man who has not changed one iota, except he speaks a little bit slower today.
That's pretty much it.
But, Bernie Sanders, who was apparently an 80-year-old communist when he was 40, The idea that he's going around telling women that they can't win the presidency because he doesn't like women is silly.
Now, maybe Bernie Sanders said, I think against Donald Trump, women are going to have a particular challenge.
Maybe he said that.
That happens to be a fairly common political analysis in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election to Donald Trump, who's about as toxic a male as it is possible to have in American politics.
According to CNN, that evening in 2018, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics.
According to one of the people familiar with the conversation, Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
So Bernie Sanders was on CNN and he denied the report.
He called it a ludicrous report.
It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win.
It's sad that three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened.
What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could.
Do I believe a woman can win in 2020?
Of course.
After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.
Okay, now as we will see, Elizabeth Warren is doing the... I didn't leak this, but he did say that.
Then who leaked it?
Really?
You think that nobody from the Warren campaign leaked it?
There's Bernie surrogates and Warren surrogates in that meeting.
Do you really think that nobody from Elizabeth Warren's team like this?
Like, the day before the debate?
So that it's a debate topic?
Do you really think that Elizabeth Warren isn't playing cynical politics in the last moments of the campaign?
She is so gross.
She really is just an awful human being.
Just really terrible.
In just a second, we'll get to Elizabeth Warren confirming that Bernie did indeed say that a woman could not win.
Oh no!
He must be a brutal sexist!
People are so tiresome.
Now, I do feel sort of like that guy from Godzilla.
Let them fight.
I'm going to enjoy it.
At the same time, gotta feel a little bit bad for Bernie.
He's just over there being a useless socialist and getting some momentum and here comes Elizabeth Warren stomping through that front door.
In traditional Native American garb, suggesting that he is sexist.
It's got to be a little bit rough to be a Democrat, honestly.
We'll get to more on this in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that when you are building a business, one of your chief costs is probably going to be legal.
It can cost an absolute dang fortune to spend money on your legal expenses when you're starting a business or when you are running a business.
And this is why you should be using LegalZoom.
I've been using LegalZoom for years, like long before they were an advertiser on this program.
I was using LegalZoom in order to do wills and trusts, in order to do simple contracts.
LegalZoom has become incredibly sophisticated.
Make 2020 the year you officially start your business or sort out that will or living trust or whatever it is you're waiting for.
Over the past 19 years, LegalZoom has helped more than 4 million people.
I'm one of those people.
They provide the resources you need to confidently resolve your personal and business legal needs.
You can get started quickly online, and if you have questions or need advice, they have the right people to help you out too.
LegalZoom is not a law firm, so you can count on their network of independent attorneys for advice at the right price, since they do not charge by the hour.
That's the way you rack up those big legal charges.
You get a partner charging you $600 an hour, not at LegalZoom.
Go to LegalZoom.com today.
Enter the promo code Ben in the box at checkout for special savings.
That's LegalZoom.com, promo code Ben.
LegalZoom is where life meets legal.
They will save you a fortune and they will save you an enormous amount of time.
Go check them out.
LegalZoom.com, promo code Ben.
Okay, so Elizabeth Warren has come out and confirmed the report.
Shocker, shocker, because she leaked it.
She says, Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election.
Our past work together.
And our shared goals.
Beating Donald Trump, taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected, and building an economy that works for everyone.
Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate.
I thought a woman could win.
He disagreed.
I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further, because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.
I'm in this race to talk about what's broken in this country and how to fix it.
And that's what I'm going to continue to do.
I know Bernie is in the race for the same reason.
We have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time.
I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.
Okay, so she absolutely leaked this.
She absolutely did so in scurrilous fashion.
She absolutely is seeking to sink Bernie Sanders among women.
She hopes that she can pick up a few more votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and maybe be a legit contender for the presidency.
It's a brutal and terrible hit.
It's a really dishonest hit by Elizabeth Warren.
And there is absolutely no question this came from Elizabeth Warren's camp.
And I do love her take.
This story that my team leaked and that I'm currently putting out a statement on, I expect no further questions.
And watch as the media humor her.
Seriously, watch as the media pretend that she doesn't need to be asked about any of those questions.
I mean, at least Chris Cuomo.
Block of wood, Chris Cuomo.
The dumber of the Cuomo brothers.
At least Chris Cuomo is honest about this one.
He says, you know, if you're going to bring up this topic, then you might be asked questions about it.
I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences.
Note to self, if you don't want to talk about it, then you should have never put out the statement.
If Bernie Sanders doesn't want to talk about it, he should have never denied it.
Now, you've got competing allegations.
Somebody's not telling the truth.
Well, it's pretty obvious what happened here, which is probably that Bernie made an offhand comment about how he thought that a woman might be at a disadvantage against Trump because Trump is so vicious.
Right, that's the kind of thing Bernie would say.
Does that mean that Bernie is an actual sexist who doesn't believe that a woman can be president?
Of course not, he just got beat by a woman in the primaries in the last go-around, so the whole thing is unbelievably silly.
So, on that level, I have a bit of sympathy for Bernie.
And then there is the political level, where Bernie is just a garbage fire.
So the fact that Bernie Sanders is taken seriously by the Democratic Party, the fact that this guy is one of the top two candidates, the fact that he really did have a significant amount of momentum going into this week's politics, it just shows you how far the Democratic Party has skewed to the left.
I mean, this guy was an independent for years in the Senate, specifically because he was too far left for the Democratic Party.
He was an independent in Vermont.
You know how left-wing you have to be to be an independent in Vermont?
I mean, my goodness.
That's, it's bizarre.
Okay, Bernie Sanders' record is egregiously, egregiously far left.
And that is why even people like Chris Matthews, who's sort of a normal left winger, even Chris Matthews, he gets up in the morning, puts on a rub of soap, come out here, have an iron in my shirt, come out of the show, Not as much hair as I used to be.
And then I come in here, I talk to John Kerry, whose face looks like it's collapsing in a mudslide from 1994 El Nino in Southern California.
Ha!
And then I tell him, Bernie's the worst.
And then we laugh about it together.
I say, ha ha!
And John Kerry says, ah ah.
Go!
You get the wrong candidate, you might lose the whole thing.
What about Bernie Sanders?
Do you think he's a danger as a president, as a candidate?
You're out there fighting like hell for Joe Biden.
How much of danger is that Bernie Sanders, who's now leading in the polls, in the latest poll out there in Iowa, how big a danger would he be to the country or to the party, the Democrats?
Let me give you a softball right up the middle, John Kerry.
Tell me, how much of a danger would Bernie Sanders be if he were the nominee?
I mean, would he be as dangerous as me ice skating around a rink behind an elephant?
Just random stuff?
But here's the thing, Chris Matthews isn't wrong.
Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a candidate who's not likely to win the hearts and minds of the American people.
And people who think that he is are a little bit delusional about exactly who Bernie Sanders is.
They've obscured his past, his 40-year-long history of being an actual communist, in order to shield from the fact that he is an actual communist, right?
If you want to make him electable, you can't talk about anything he's done for 40 years.
Instead, you have to buy his nonsense now that he only likes Finland.
He only likes Norway.
He only likes Denmark.
He never- I never liked Venezuela.
I was never a fan of Cuba, or Nicaragua, or the Soviet Union.
Except for all the years when I was actually putting up pennants for Stalin in my home.
I bought a pennant of Stalin.
It went right next to my Brooklyn Dodgers pennant.
And I put it up in my home.
And each night, I would sing the Soviet Union National Anthem.
But let me tell you, I was never a fan.
I was never a fan.
They didn't have enough pudding.
Here's the problem for Bernie Sanders.
Dude was actually, like, a full-on commie.
And continues to be, right?
He just sort of shields it now.
So, let's look back at Bernie's record briefly.
According to Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott, this is from March 14th, 2019, over at CNN, Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described radical political party in the 1970s.
By the way, in the 1970s, Bernie Sanders was still 72 years old.
Bernie Sanders' past views shed light on a formative period of his political career that could become relevant as he advances in the 2020 Democratic primary.
Many of the positions he held at the time are more extreme compared to the more tempered democratic socialism the Vermont senator espouses today, and could provide fodder for moderate Democrats and Republicans looking to cast the Democratic presidential candidate and his beliefs as a fringe form of socialism that would be harmful to the country.
Aspects of Sanders' plans and time in the Liberty Union have been reported before, But the material taken together, including hundreds of newly digitalized newspapers and files from the Liberty Union Party archives at the University of Vermont, paint a fuller picture.
In a statement to CNN, Sanders' campaign spokesperson, Josh Orton, said last year, Throughout his career, Bernie has fought on the side of working people and against the influence of both the powerful ultra-rich and giant corporations who seek only to further their own greed.
The record shows that from the very beginning, Bernie anticipated and worked to combat the rise of a billionaire ruling class and the exploding power of Wall Street and multinational corporations.
Bernie's priority has always been and always will be defending the interests of working people across the country.
That does not sound, right there, so much like an apology.
Does it?
I'm not getting the apology there from Bernie Sanders.
Okay, so a little bit more on Bernie Sanders in the Liberty Union Party.
After moving to Vermont in 1968, according to CNN, several years after graduating college, Sanders became an active member of the left-wing Liberty Union Party.
Under the Liberty Union banner, Sanders, then in his early 30s... Bernie Sanders back in the 1970s is the same age that I was now.
He ran for governor of Vermont in 1972 and 1976, and then as a candidate for Senate in 72 and 74.
Didn't do great.
Sanders also served as chairman of the party from 73 to 75.
During this time, Sanders and Liberty Union argued for nationalization of the energy industry, which worked out amazingly well for the oil industry in Venezuela, bankrupting the country and leading to people eating dogs in the streets.
Public ownership of banks Which typically has gone hand in hand with a complete socialization of lending, which has ended with a death of entrepreneurship, telephone, electric, and drug companies, and of the major means of production such as factories and capital, as well as other proposals such as a 100% income tax on the highest income earners in America.
So he's a full-on communist.
I mean, this is just communism, right?
Every element of this is social ownership of the means of production, which is to say state ownership of the means of production.
That is the definition of communism.
Bernie Sanders was full on for it.
And when asked about it, he was like, I always stood up for working people.
Working people, the proletariat.
You might say they should break their chains.
You might say that the workers of the world should unite.
And if there are a few gulags, there are a few gulags.
Sanders also rejected political violence and criticized the anti-democratic nature of communist states such as the Soviet Union.
That was always the communist way in the United States of winking and nodding at the Soviet Union.
I do not like the violence in the Soviet Union, but boy, do they have wonderful healthcare!
This has been Bernie Sanders' position for a long time.
In one interview in 1976, Sanders said, I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks, and major industries.
So that's some pretty wild stuff.
And it turns out that Bernie Sanders has been fairly consistent about all of this.
Paul Sperry had a column in January of 2016 talking about how Sanders was an actual communist.
He says, while attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League, a youth wing of the Socialist Party USA.
He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Then he moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People's History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda, where he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs.
Apparently, he still hangs a portrait of Eugene Debs on his wall in his Senate office, which is pretty astonishing.
That was as of 2016.
In 1918, Debs announced his solidarity with Lenin and Trotsky.
And then, of course, as we just mentioned, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of everything.
And then after he failed, in 1981, he managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls, raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts.
Local small businesses handed out flyers complaining the mayor did, quote, not believe in free enterprise.
And then he took a bunch of goodwill trips to various communist dictatorships around the world, where he was very angry at the violence, but also they seem like pretty great places, do they not?
In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government, which was slaughtering its opponents.
He called it a heroic revolution, and he undermined anti-communist U.S.
policy, denouncing the Reagan administration backing the Contras in a letter to the Sandinistas.
He even tried to broker a peace deal and invited Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to visit the United States.
He exalted Ortega as an impressive guy while attacking President Reagan.
I mean, yes, this is who Bernie Sanders was, and I've seen not a lot of evidence that Bernie Sa- I mean, he's never repudiated any of this.
At no point did he turn around and say, yeah, by the way, this is a- this is- this was a mistake, and I went too far.
It was youthful exuber- sure, I was 47, but it was youthful exuberance!
I mean, I'm now 1,000 years old.
I was just a babe.
I'm basically like Baby Yoda.
I'm 8 years old, but I was still a baby.
Today, Sanders wants to bring what he admired in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other communist states to the United States, according to Paul Sperry.
And obviously, his program for government spending is extraordinarily ambitious, to put it kindly.
But don't just ask me about it.
Ask Bernie about it.
Back in 1986, Bernie suggested that JFK's response to the rise of the Castros made him want to puke.
That would be the Castro's who are busy shooting dissidents in the streets, jailing them, and then imposing communal land ownership and wrecking the economy of Cuba such that people in 2020 are still driving around Chevys from the 1950s when they're not attempting to float them to the coast of Florida.
Kennedy was saying that Nixon was too soft on communism.
We pick up a point that Rick was making in Cuba.
We should deal firmly with Fidel Castro.
And Nixon was playing the role of, hey, you've got to be patient.
You know, you can't do these things.
You've got to negotiate.
Well, of course, what he was upset about is that secretly they were planning the Bay of Pigs invasion right then.
But for security reasons, he couldn't come out and say, we're already planning the destruction of the Cuban Revolution.
Don't worry about it.
So he, he was the liberal and Kennedy was playing the conservative.
Actually, you know, when you read novels, people say there's a sick feeling in your stomach.
Usually I'm Sufficiently unemotional not to be sick, but I actually got up in the room and almost left the puke.
He almost left the puke when I found out that the United States opposed a communist revolution that ended with the slaughter of people who actually wanted to just keep their property.
Back in the day, Bernie was also praising bread lines.
Bernie loves bread lines, actually.
This is the same period where he was explaining that bread lines are good because there are lines for bread.
Why should you not have lines for bread?
It's like a grocery store.
Bread lines are good.
You know what else is good?
Mass starvation.
Also gulags.
Bernie Sanders.
You know, it's funny.
Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food.
That's a good thing.
In other countries, people don't line up for food.
The rich get the food and the poor starve to death.
In other countries, rich people get food and poor people starve to death like the United States.
But when there are bread lines, everything is great.
Because nobody gets bread, but there is a line.
And I like lines.
Have you ever danced in a conga line?
Have you ever done the Macarena?
Let me ask you that.
Have you ever done a proper conga line or a proper Macarena?
You don't see that in the United States, where cultural heritage is restricted to the Charleston and square dancing.
Have you ever seen such a thing?
Okay, by the way, back then, Bernie Sanders was also praising Soviet infrastructure.
I just love how this entire period of his career has been wiped clean, as though he doesn't believe all these things.
And when he's asked about it, he doesn't apologize.
As you will see in just a moment, when Bernie Sanders is asked openly about this stuff, he doesn't back off of it.
It's not as though Bernie has decided that he changed his mind.
Like, over the course— Listen, I've been doing this since I was 17.
Since the time I was— So, almost 20 years.
In that time, some of my views have changed.
Some of them have moderated.
Some of them become stronger.
And this happens over time.
And when I've changed my view on something, I try to be open about the views that have changed.
And if somebody asks me about it, I will say that my views have changed.
You can find tons of tape of me online talking about this.
Bernie Sanders has not changed his views since he was campaigning with Trotsky.
Here is Bernie Sanders talking about Soviet infrastructure and the wonders of Soviet infrastructure.
By the way, this is like a couple years before the Soviet Union collapsed because it turns out it was a garbage heap.
Most of the people here also were extremely impressed by their public transportation system.
The stations themselves were absolutely beautiful, including many works of art, chandeliers that were beautiful.
It was a very, very effective system.
Also, I was impressed by the youth programs that they have.
They have palaces of culture for the young people, a whole variety of programs for young people, and cultural programs which go far beyond what we do in this country.
They have unbelievable cultural programs in the USSR!
Unbelievable cultural programs!
They teach you to sing about how great Stalin was!
And then, also, they teach you to dance about how great Stalin was!
And then when you're finished singing and dancing, they teach you to recite poetry about how great Stalin was.
It's cultural genius over there, as opposed to the United States, the inventor of jazz, rock and roll, musical theater, movies.
They've got actual culture over there.
Actual, unbelievable, great culture.
And only one flavor of pudding, because you only need one flavor of pudding.
And it is indeed tapioca.
More on Bernie Sanders.
Again, this guy might win the Democratic nomination.
How nuts is one quarter of the country right now?
Like full-on crazy.
Completely crazy.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, if you're not already a Daily Wire member, you are truly missing out.
Right now, using promo code Shapiro, you'll get 10% off any plan that you choose.
Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and pick the plan that is right for you.
That's right!
10% off!
For as little as $10 a month, members get our articles ad-free!
Access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of The Ben Shapiro Show, select bonus content, access to the mailbag, and more.
Plus, our new all-access tier gets you into exclusive live online Q&A discussions with me, Andrew Klaven, Matt Walsh, Michael Mowles, plus Daily Wire writers and special guests.
And don't forget, you also get the very greatest of all beverage vessels.
Yes!
You get all of those wondrous glories, plus 10% off!
That's right, 10% off!
Like, go do it right now!
Does anyone know when the deals are going to come, or when they are going to go?
Will they blow high, or will they blow low?
Go check them out right now!
Get all of those wonders, plus 10% off!
Use promo code Shapiro, which you should remember, because you're listening to my show.
So stop depriving yourself, come join the fun!
Plus, by the way, you want to insulate us against a left that is going to try and come after us this year like nobody's business?
Join the team!
Like, people often will ask me, how do I help?
How do I help the conservative movement?
There are lots of ways to help.
One of the ways you can help, it sounds self-serving, but it's true, is to help insulate the outlets that you love from the blowback that they receive from the left, which seeks to target their advertisers and seeks to ruin them.
When you join the team, you make sure that we can continue bringing you the content that you need.
Go check us out right now, dailywire.com, and use promo code Shapiro to get 10% off.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Okay, so when I say that Bernie Sanders has not changed, like ever, This week, he did an interview with the New York Times.
It's a very, very long interview.
And he was asked specifically about his opinions on Latin America.
So Latin America is a favorite.
It's a favorite topic for folks on the left, the Noam Chomsky left.
People liking to suggest that the United States has been interventionist in South America in unbelievably terrible ways because the United States worked sometimes with right-wing dictators in order to fight communist insurgencies in South America, which is true, because the United States has acted through the Monroe Doctrine to prevent great powers from intervening.
In Latin America, because it happens to be a fact of life and of history that when the United States was quote unquote imperialist in particular areas of the world, that has generally been in order to counter imperialism from countries across the sea that goes all the way back to the 18, really the 1820s and the Monroe Doctrine, the notion that no European country should set foot in the Western Hemisphere.
But Bernie Sanders is asked a simple question by one of the members of the New York Times editorial board, quote, you've long supported movements in Latin America to oppose American intervention and oppressive regimes there.
Why do you think it is that so many of the leftist governments that have taken power in the last few years, despite the hopes that many American leftists had that they would bring about change, have become anti-democratic, corrupt and even brutal?
That is just a simple fact.
Okay, and Bernie Sanders, his response to this is, What about all the right-wing people in Latin America?
He says, well, for a start, compared to what?
What I have opposed my whole life is U.S. interventionism and overthrowing governments.
Well, except for the fact that you did stand in favor of Daniel Ortega.
As you are familiar with, the United States has a long history under the so-called Monroe Doctrine of overthrowing governments.
I don't think that is right.
Only communists should be able to overthrow governments because workers of the world should rise up and break their feathers.
Alright, I think it was wrong to overthrow Salvador Allende in Chile.
It was wrong to overthrow the Brazilian government.
Wrong to overthrow the government in Dominican Republic.
Wrong to overthrow the Grenadian government.
You know, it's just Big Brother thinking they have a right to intervene, whatever they wanted, in Latin America.
Now you raise an interesting question.
First of all, when we talk about recent governments, Lula, this would be the former president of Brazil, who I talked to a couple of weeks ago, we can argue it.
Now I'm not telling you I'm the world's greatest expert, but I suspect the case against them was an illegitimate case.
Hey, Lula was corrupt.
And then he talks about Yair Bolsonaro, and he says Yair Bolsonaro is a dictator.
And then he praises Evo Morales of Bolivia, whose record is not particularly good, which is why there was a coup in Bolivia.
It was a democratic coup.
He was attempting to oust Morales after he attempted to change the constitution single-handedly.
The New York Times editorial board even came out and said that Morales had, quote, shed his legitimacy as a leader because of his attempts to destroy the constitutional republic.
And then he talks about Mexico.
He says, in Mexico, well, you have drug cartels, massive amount of corruption in terms of other countries.
So I'm not sure I accept the basic premises.
Lula, I think, did a good job in Brazil.
The people of Brazil did not think so.
I think Morales probably should not have run again, but his record is not a bad record.
And somebody asked him about Nicaragua and he said, And then he attacks Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro's not a dictator.
Bolsonaro entered office like two years ago.
The hell are you talking about?
I think that's unfortunate.
But don't only look to leftist governments.
And then he attacks Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro's not a dictator.
Bolsonaro entered office like two years ago.
The hell are you talking about?
You're comparing that to Daniel Ortega?
The Ortega's been in power for like decades.
What are you saying?
And then, he's asked about Venezuela.
He says, I assume that Venezuela would be one of the exceptions on that list as well.
I said, yup, yup.
And then, by the way, Sanders has warned against intervention in Venezuela.
So basically, there's not a left-wing dictatorship on planet Earth he's willing to attack.
But he's willing to declare non-dictators, who happen to be right-wing, dictators in order to push his nonsense.
So Bernie Sanders has always been deeply radical.
That has not ended.
That has not stopped.
And when you listen to him talk about what exactly he wants to do in his first 100 days, it's wild.
So he was asked what would his first 100 days look like.
And here's what he says.
He says, it's going to be a busy hundred days.
In fact, I've made enough promises.
I think I'm going to be up all night on my first day.
I'm going to go to bed at five in the morning.
I think the most important point, aside from the legislation, is to convince the American people that, in fact, we can have a government that represents working people and not just the 1%.
The notion that the American government has ever represented only the 1% is absolute nonsense.
It's been absolute nonsense for all of American history.
And it is particularly nonsense today.
He says, obviously the legislation we're going to introduce will deal with climate change, which I consider to be an enormous threat, not only to this country, but to the planet.
We'll introduce Medicare-for-all legislation in the first week!
That's only going to cost us a minimum of $32 trillion over 10 years.
It will likely cost much more than that.
There has yet to be a government estimate of cost that even remotely approaches what the actual cost looks like when you set up the government program.
He says, we'll be introducing legislation not dissimilar to what the House passed, raising the minimum wage to a living wage.
He would like to see the House of Representatives raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, which of course will not cause any unemployment in the teenage ranks.
That's exactly what happens.
When a minimum wage is raised, the people who retain their jobs have a higher minimum wage.
Everybody else is unemployed, and this particularly creates a downward pressure on labor, because it means that if you're less qualified, you can no longer get the $7.25 an hour job, because now it's paying $15 an hour.
That one's gonna go to, you know, a college junior or something.
He also says that he's going to introduce legislation to rebuild our infrastructure, make public colleges and universities tuition-free.
He's going to do all of this in the first hundred days, and he's going to do it magically.
Because he was asked, how are you going to do this?
Because Mitch McConnell is in the Senate.
And he says that the agenda is supported by the American people, so I'm going to yell about it.
That's his plan.
That he's going to actually just stand there and yell.
He says, it's rallying the American people around an agenda that they already support.
All right?
That guy is your possible frontrunner.
And that is why so many Democrats are looking around and going, you know, maybe this Biden guy isn't the scariest guy.
Maybe we should go with the Biden guy because at least he ain't an old commie.
At least he ain't an old commie.
And meanwhile, The hubbub over impeachment continues.
Apparently, according to The Hill, GOP leadership believes there are not 51 votes to dismiss the Trump articles of impeachment right away, which is not a shock.
It is not surprising that the Republicans do not have a preemptive dismissal prepared.
Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri told reporters on Monday the Senate Republican caucus does not have the votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Trump, who endorsed an outright dismissal over the weekend.
Blunt said, I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss.
Certainly there aren't 51 votes for a motion to dismiss.
President Trump has been trying to push all of that.
But the fact is that the Republicans are not going to go for that.
They're going to run through the process and then they are not going to vote to impeach him.
And then that is going to be that.
There's also a poll out today from Quinnipiac suggesting that a majority of Americans are interested in hearing from John Bolton, which is, again, not a surprise.
The media have been stumping No trial will be a fair trial without witnesses and documents, and John Bolton is a key witness.
And so he should be subpoenaed.
President Trump, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, is saying that Bolton should be subpoenaed, which is weird because he wasn't saying the same thing when Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House didn't subpoena John Bolton.
No trial will be a fair trial without witnesses and documents.
And John Bolton is a key witness.
And so he should be subpoenaed.
And if he is subpoenaed, executive privilege won't stop him.
They tried to invoke Executive Privilege against Fiona Hill.
They tried to invoke Executive Privilege against William Taylor.
They tried to invoke Executive Privilege against Sunderland.
But since they wanted to go ahead and testify, they did, and Bolton could do just the same.
If you're wondering why I only spend a couple minutes every show talking about impeachment, it's because it's completely a waste of time.
This is not going anywhere.
Bolton is not going to get up there and give a bombshell testimony that breaks President Trump's presidency.
That's not where any of this is going to go.
Democrats, however, would certainly rather focus on that than they would on President Trump's victory over the last couple of weeks in Iran.
The American public increasingly are basically in favor of what Trump did with regard to Soleimani.
Trump's Never going to show up in the polls this way.
What I mean is that if you ask the American people if they ever approve of anything Trump does, only about 45% will ever say yes.
Ever.
Because the other 55% have been taught by the media that it's very, very bad to say anything nice about President Trump ever.
I mean, the media essentially suggests that if you're seen within a 30-foot radius of President Trump, you have become absolutely toxic.
Last night, people went nuts because the actor Vince Vaughn was in a luxury box with the President of the United States at the college football national championship game.
People were going nuts over this.
Okay, first of all, Vince Vaughn has been a Republican for a very long time.
He's been very open about this.
Vaughn is a libertarian.
He's been a very outspoken libertarian.
People are going nuts.
How come?
Oh my God!
He's shaking Donald Trump's hand.
I guess that you can't watch swingers anymore because Vince Vaughn shook President Trump's hand.
That's totally crazy.
How could?
No!
No!
So the American public know that there's blowback for even suggesting any warmth at all toward President Trump's policies.
So what you end up with is for any action, about 45% will say that it's good.
The question is how many say that it's bad.
Because if that percent is low, that means that like 30% of Americans are happy with it, but they're not going to say so.
Perfect example.
According to Quinnipiac, slightly more American voters say that the killing of a top Iranian general was the right action for the United States to take, with 45% saying it was the right action, 41% saying it was the wrong action.
However, 45% say the killing of Qasem Soleimani has made Americans less safe.
While 32% say it has made Americans more safe.
18% say it has had no impact on the safety of Americans.
Okay, those are actually good numbers for Trump because that means that 50% say that the killing of Soleimani didn't actually make America less safe.
And it says that a plurality of Americans say that killing Soleimani was the right action.
Also, a vast majority of voters, 58%, believe that the tensions between the United States and Iran will not lead to war.
Only 29% believe that it will lead to war.
And that is led by a... Even the Democratic Party is evenly split on that question.
So, President Trump gets a win with regard to Iran.
The Democrats continue to pretend that the Trump administration did something deeply wrong in killing Soleimani.
It is amazing to watch the same Democrats who suggested that the Obama administration did not lie in the aftermath of Benghazi, that the thing was not a terror attack, it was a spontaneous uprising caused by a random YouTube video.
The same media who say that was not a scandal, suggest it is a scandal, that Trump suggested that Soleimani was going to participate in imminent terror, when that was literally his job.
I praised Chris Cuomo earlier.
I'm going to correct that error now.
Here's Chris Cuomo of CNN suggesting that President Trump's plan on Iran is to lie, deny, and defy.
How about this?
How about the media's plan on Iran is to back the Obama narrative even weeks after it has been openly debunked?
The Trump triple step is in full effect once again.
What is it?
Lie, deny, defy.
Take Iran.
It was imminent because Iran is bad.
And this guy was a terrorist.
Okay.
But why imminent?
Wow, lie, deny, defy.
No proof that it was, period.
Then the president denies that fact and says it was about the embassy that they hit in the past.
And for more, something even his inner circle can't back up.
Wow, lie, deny, defy.
Alternatively, you could just notice that Soleimani was a lifelong terrorist.
Yes, Trump has a habit of getting over his skis and saying things that are not true or embellishing.
Does that undermine the central point?
When Soleimani was a terrorist and needed to die?
No, it does not undermine that point at all, but the media are going to focus on the trees specifically so they can avoid focusing on the forest.
Okay, time for a quick thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, I just recently completed a read of Ludwig von Mises' Socialism, an Economic and Sociological Analysis.
It is amazing how bad ideas never die.
They never even really fade.
Von Mises really debunks socialism, Marxist socialism, from beginning to end, and many other types of socialism, ranging from syndicalism to guild socialism.
He does all of that in this, what at the time was a very famous book, Socialism, an Economic and Sociological Analysis.
He did that in 1920.
Socialism has always been a rotten idea.
It was never practical.
The Austrian School of Economics, ranging from Schumpeter to Hayek to von Mises, did an excellent job of debunking the theoretical underpinnings of socialism, and in the process, debunking a lot of the idiocies of Keynesianism and government interventionism as well.
But we prefer to ignore all of that because the lure of socialism, the lure of what if we just had the wisest among us delegating power to the rest of us and determining what was fair and correcting all cosmic imbalances?
The ring of power is incredibly seductive.
It's incredibly seductive.
The fatal conceit that we are so wise that we can control the economy top-down is incredibly seductive.
And by the way, you see it on the right and the left.
These days you see it on the right too.
People suggesting that if we just correct the economy, if we just chain up the economy and make it work for us, why do we work for the free markets?
Why don't the free markets work for us?
That's idiotic.
That's like saying, why don't we make breathing work for us as opposed to working for breathing?
Free markets are just a recognition that individuals have rights.
They have a right to own their own labor.
They have a right to dispense with their own labor as they see fit.
They have a right to alienate their own labor.
They have a right to do anything they want with their own labor.
And mutual exchange is a matter of consent, right?
Recognizing those basic principles brings you to the free market.
Suggesting that the collective need overrides those individual principles eventually leads you down the road to tyranny.
That doesn't mean that you always end up at tyranny.
Sometimes you end up at sort of half tyranny.
Sometimes you end up with violations of property rights that are minimal.
Sometimes you end up with violations of property rights that are at the ultimate extreme as you see in the Soviet Union.
But the bottom line is that socialism as a theory was never workable.
Von Mises debunked it thoroughly in 1920.
We are now a hundred years later and people are pretending that it has not been debunked.
That somehow there is some new information out there that is going to somehow solve the knowledge problem.
The idea that the entire economy has more information than any cadre of wise folks at the top.
There are people who are suggesting that somehow computers are going to solve all this.
Algorithms are going to solve the vagaries of the market.
Yeah, except for the fact that people don't actually know what they want until an entrepreneur actually creates a new product and creates a dynamic economy.
One of the great conceits of both right and left when it comes to government running the economy or government interventionism in the economy is the notion that government has the capacity not only to pick winners and losers, but also to forecast what comes next.
And this is obviously foolish.
It's obviously not true.
The great developments in human history have been responses to market needs that people did not even know existed.
If you had asked people, there's a famous sort of Henry Ford apocryphal statement, if you had asked people in 1890 what they were looking for in a form of transportation, they would have said a faster horse.
People don't know what they want until somebody invents something new, until somebody creates a new product, until that product meets the price point at which people are willing to pay.
And when you hear socialists suggest that profit margin is an innate evil, this is like the AOC view and the Bernie Sanders view, that profit is greed.
Profit is greed.
It is the profit margin that provides the incentive structure that leads to the development of new, better processes, that leads products to become cheaper and more plentiful and more available.
And it is the price mechanism of the market itself, a price mechanism that cannot be set by government, because not only do they not have the information, even if they did have information, they'd have to get it from some sort of outside market, is the point Mises makes.
The notion that an entirely socialist earth, wherein no price mechanism exists, That you could then define the price of labor in that you can't define labor that way.
Because how would you know which labor is more valuable and which labor is not?
The only way you can do that is by submitting the product of the labor to the market and determining how much of somebody's labor they wish to trade in favor of somebody else's product.
That's the only way to determine what things are worth.
And we're still operating under the labor theory of value, which is that things are worth the amount of work that people put into them.
That is obviously untrue.
People on the right and the left buy into this nonsense.
It is economically untrue.
It is logically untrue.
It's clearly untrue.
If you ask somebody, what is more valuable?
An hour of labor in a coal mine or an hour of a man tinkering on a machine in his garage in 1982?
Most people would say an hour of work in the coal mine.
But if it turns out that the guy tinkering in his garage on a computer in 1982 is Bill Gates, well, then you might be wrong.
Turns out the market provides good, an excellent barometer of subjective values.
See, the thing is that every decision that you make is a subjective decision insofar as the value of a particular good, service, or product.
And the fact that the left refuses to acknowledge this and increasingly people on the right refuse to acknowledge it.
They think that there is some sort of objective value that can be assessed in a good or a product or a service, and that the government can therefore set it and get rid of the profit margin.
And then because the profit margin has gone, develop products more efficiently.
This ignores the fact that the market is, as Schumpeter put it, a part, a machine of creative destruction.
And that all the good stuff you have in your life, the reason you live better now than your parents did in 1950, Is because of all of the entrepreneurs who are creating new products and services and all the competition that made those luxury products available to the masses.
The economy is not, in fact, stagnant.
I've said this many times.
Socialism, the only thing it's good for is redistributing products that exist in the here and now.
That's the only thing that the government can do.
The government cannot produce more efficiently than the free market, nor can the government develop new products and services that have the capacity to reach the entire American market, at least now.
Without going about it at the expense of the actual market itself.
The only way you can tell what people want is to ask them.
And the fact that people refuse to recognize this is because people refuse to read books.
Go check out Ludwig von Mises' Socialism.
Not an easy read, but an important read.
Alrighty, a quick thing that I hate.
So I will acknowledge that I think there are a lot of good movies that were made this year.
The Academy Awards nominations came out yesterday.
I think there were a lot of good movies.
I've already praised Ford vs. Ferrari.
I've already praised 1917.
I've already praised Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
A lot of good movies this year.
But apparently, the Oscars are, again, very white and very sexist.
And this led Issa Rae, who's the star of some show whose name I cannot recall on HBO.
She was announcing the director nominees.
And this, of course, means that she gets to sound off about how sexist the Academy is.
The Irishman, Martin Scorsese.
Joker, Todd Phillips.
1917, Sam Mendes.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino.
And Parasite, Bong Joon-ho.
I did it?
I did it?
Thank you so much.
Congratulations to those men.
Congratulations to those men.
There's a sort of soft laugh.
She's the host.
She's the star of the show's called Insecure.
She got all sorts of plaudits for this.
Look at her strength and power in standing up to the men in her industry.
The one who everybody was whining about was Greta Gerwig, who directed Little Women.
She also directed Lady Bird and was nominated for Best Director two years ago.
So apparently between then and now, the Oscars have gotten very racist and very sexist again, which is exciting news.
It is, I will admit, a little bit fun to watch Hollywood eat its own.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
So make sure that you stick around for that.
Otherwise, show up here tomorrow.
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 Stephens.
Associate Producer Colton Haas.
Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Sijewicz.
Audio is Mixed by Mike Karlmina.
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 Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.
▲
Export Selection