Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 11, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:10:32

Live Socialist Or Die | Ep. 951

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The New Hampshire primaries are here, Michael Bloomberg meets Ruff Road as old audio of him emerges on Stop and Frisk, and we discuss whether the nuclear family was mistake.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Your data is your business protected at expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Well today, New Hampshire primaries, and the voting has already started.
	In Dixville Notch, which is of course this tiny little place in New Hampshire where they vote really early, the first few voters voted surprisingly for Michael Bloomberg.
	Bloomberg's getting some write-in votes, which demonstrates that there is real disquiet.
	I mean, it doesn't demonstrate that much because it's like three voters, but What it does demonstrate is that there is some pretty significant disquiet inside the Democratic Party about exactly who ought to be its nominee.
	A lot of people very, very nervous about Bernie Sanders, as well they should be, because the new national polling has Bernie Sanders on top, not because he has really gained a lot of ground, but because Joe Biden is absolutely collapsing in on himself like a dying star.
	It's unbelievable.
	I mean, the man is turning into a polling black hole.
	There are two separate national polls out, and Joe Biden has collapsed in both of them.
	There's a Quinnipiac poll that came out yesterday.
	It showed Bernie Sanders up at 25%, which is not Honestly, like a huge jump for him.
	Normally, he's somewhere between 20 and 23, so it's like a slight increase for him.
	But Joe Biden, who normally runs in the low 30s or high 20s, is all the way down at 17% in that Quinnipiac poll, with Michael Bloomberg polling at 15%.
	He hasn't even run in a primary yet.
	Elizabeth Warren at 14, Pete Buttigieg at 10, Amy Klobuchar at 4.
	Okay, and when you break that down by white and black voters, Sanders is actually leading among white voters 22-16 over Elizabeth Warren.
	Among black voters, Biden is still in the lead with 27%, but that's not going to be enough to carry him over the top.
	That gap between him and the rest of the field has been shrinking steadily.
	In second place with black voters in that Quinnipiac poll is Michael Bloomberg.
	Now as we'll get to, that may not last long.
	Depending on the impact of some new audio that's come out about Michael Bloomberg talking about his stop-and-frisk policies in New York, and largely defending the fact that the impact of the stop-and-frisk policies just really kind of disproportionately, depends on how you measure the proportionality, fell largely, let's say, on minority people in New York City.
	We'll get to audio of Bloomberg talking about that, which is creating a stir today.
	Bernie Sanders is running in third place, only eight percentage points back among black voters.
	In that Quinnipiac polls, those are good numbers for Bernie Sanders and horrible, horrible numbers for Joe Biden.
	And that's not the only poll that's horrible for Biden today.
	Disastrous poll from Monmouth.
	The previous poll from Monmouth was January 16th through 20th.
	Bernie Sanders has gained only about three points, about 26%.
	Joe Biden has collapsed 14 points in that poll nationally.
	He's now collapsed in most of the polls down to second place, which is a disaster for him because again, his entire pitch was electability.
	Joe Biden's entire spiel here was, I'm the person who is most electable.
	You have to put me up in a general election because I'm going to win.
	The problem is people, when they hear electable, believe that electable is a quality that translates from the primaries to the general.
	So they get the logic wrong.
	What Biden was always arguing is that he was the most electable in a general election matchup against Trump.
	And there's an argument for that, even though he doesn't do well in primaries.
	The problem is that electability is not separated in the public mind between primaries and general election electability.
	People don't make that distinction.
	So if you say, I'm super electable, guys, I'm the most electable, and then you start losing elections, it's very difficult to recover from that and look like Captain Electability when it comes to a general election.
	So the overall perception of electability in a general is indeed affected, even though it shouldn't be, by lack of electability in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where Biden is completely falling down on the job.
	In that Monmouth poll, by the way, a couple of the candidates who have been rising, Bloomberg is up to 11% in that poll.
	Buttigieg is up to 13% in that poll.
	Elizabeth Warren has been dropping steadily as well.
	It would not be a grand surprise to see Elizabeth Warren drop into third or even fourth place.
	Amy Klobuchar has been getting some early support.
	As well, she should because she is the most electable Democrat who is not Joe Biden in a general election in all of this.
	And by the way, that is pretty much what this Quinnipiac poll shows.
	The Quinnipiac poll shows that there is that everybody basically beats Trump on a national level.
	But again, the Quinnipiac poll is taken nationally.
	It's not taken in these various states.
	The favorability rating is where all of these Democrats are in serious trouble, okay?
	Because right now, the presumption is that a lot of these Democrats are going to outperform expectations because Trump is so unpopular, but the favorability ratings for a lot of these Democrats are really bad.
	So let's go back to the Quinnipiac poll for a second.
	So it says that Michael Bloomberg would beat Trump 51 to 42, that Sanders would beat Trump 51 to 43, that Biden would beat Trump 50 to 43, which again, kills Biden's electability argument, because if Sanders is polling better against Trump than Biden is, then what exactly is Biden's argument?
	Klobuchar would defeat Trump 49-43, Warren 48-44, Buttigieg 47-43.
	Now, in reality, Trump, who's an incumbent president, is not going to finish at 42-43%.
	He was polling at 42-43% in the last election cycle, and he ended up winning 46% of the vote.
	He's now the incumbent president with a strong economy.
	Chances are he ends up closer to 48 or 49% of the vote.
	But, here's the real problem for Democrats.
	In that Quinnipiac poll, Elizabeth Warren has a negative favorability rating.
	A 39% favorability rating.
	That is lower than Trump's.
	Biden has a 43% favorability rating, which is about the same as Trump's.
	Bloomberg has a 34% favorability rating.
	25% have not heard enough about him to get him higher than that, so he's underwater by about 6 points.
	Biden's underwater by 7.
	Warren is underwater by 8.
	Sanders has a 44% favorability rating.
	Buttigieg has a positive favorability rating, but only 36% of people say they're positive about him because 31% haven't heard enough about him.
	And Klobuchar has 32% positive, 44% have not heard enough about her.
	President Trump, even in this Quinnipiac poll, it shows that President Trump is at the highest point of his presidency in the Q poll in terms of favorability.
	He's at 43% favorable, which again is very competitive with all these other Democrats.
	The only Democrat who's ahead of him, and this is within the margin of error, is Sanders at 44%.
	Everybody else is well behind President Trump.
	And he scores high marks on his handling of the economy.
	54% of voters, even in this Quinnipiac poll, approve of his handling of the economy.
	Independence approved 59% to 37% so Trump is in very strong shape heading into this election cycle.
	The Democrats are collapsing and Joe Biden in particular is completely collapsing and so everybody is looking for an alternative.
	The alternative for the moment was supposed to be Pete Buttigieg.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	We're gonna get to Sanders and Buttigieg and really Bloomberg who is seen as sort of the guy waiting in the wings and obviously the person that Trump is worried about.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about making your business more efficient.
	Something that you don't think about when you have a small business too much, and it's one of the things that really can come back and bite you directly in the butt, is HR issues.
	You really don't think about it too much, because what, you have 10, 15 employees?
	Are you really going to have HR issues?
	Well, the minute that somebody goes to the Department of Labor over something that you haven't thought about, then it becomes a major time and money suck.
	This is why you need Bambi, right?
	We spend a lot of money on HR, but you don't have to spend.
	a lot of money on HR because you have a small business.
	Why should you spend a ton of money on HR?
	If you hired an HR specialist just to come and work at your company, it's going to cost you $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year.
	Instead, why don't you go check out Bambi right now?
	Bambi, spelled B-A-M-B-E, was created specifically for small business.
	You get a dedicated HR manager.
	They craft HR policy.
	They maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month.
	This isn't just some sort of hotline that you're calling up, some person picks up in India.
	It's like a dedicated HR specialist who's gonna help you write all your policies, help you deal with the government in case something crops up, make sure that you are in compliance with all applicable law, because laws can widely vary between jurisdictions as far as, for example, minimum wage, or hours worked, or overtime, all that kind of stuff.
	Bambi makes sure that you are on the ball with all of this stuff.
	Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat.
	From onboarding determinations, they customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees day-to-day, all for just 99 bucks a month.
	Month-to-month, no hidden fees, you can cancel anytime.
	So this really is a solid, solid deal.
	Go to bambee.com slash Shapiro, that's B-A-M-B-E-E dot com slash Shapiro right now, and schedule your free HR audit.
	That's bambee.com slash Shapiro, spelled bam, B-E-E dot com slash Shapiro, bambee.com slash Shapiro.
	You're gonna save yourself lots of time, or you're not.
	Lower your downside risk when it comes to HR issues, and you're gonna do all of it for 99 bucks a month as opposed to spending thousands and thousands of dollars every year on this sort of thing.
	It's bambee.com slash Shapiro.
	Go check it out, get that free HR audit.
	Okay, so, with Joe Biden collapsing into the mud, I mean, absolutely collapsing, this means that his last gasp is Nevada.
	He's not even gonna make it to South Carolina.
	He'll stick around till South Carolina, just for the craps and giggles of it, right?
	I mean, he has to, because his entire pitch is that he's gonna win a disproportionate share of black voters.
	Well, he's collapsing in the black vote, right?
	Michael Bloomberg is chipping away at that, which is unbelievable because, again, Michael Bloomberg is widely perceived by the radical left on Twitter to be a racist.
	I mean, Bloomberg is racist is trending today.
	The reason that Bloomberg is racist is trending today is because there's audio that came out of Michael Bloomberg in 2015 at the Aspen Institute talking specifically about stop and frisk policy.
	Now, one of the things that I think is necessary to understand what Bloomberg is saying here He's being accused of racism because he's saying that Stop and Frisk disproportionately affected black and Hispanic communities in New York City.
	In order to determine whether that's true, whether it's disproportionately affecting black and Hispanic communities, the question is, what proportionality are you using?
	We're just going to analyze the content of what he's saying, and then we'll get to the affect of what he's saying.
	Because the affect of what he's saying is obviously very bad.
	He articulates this in the worst possible way.
	In order to understand, and I've talked about this on the program before, whether stop-and-frisk policy was disproportionately affecting minorities, the question is, what are you comparing it to?
	Are you comparing the number of people stopped and frisked in a particular community to the general population demographic of a community, or are you comparing it to crime rates?
	And that makes a huge difference, right?
	Because if you were to say, if I was just going to tell you 50% of the people in prison in the United States for murder are black, Which is about correct.
	It's somewhere between 45 and 50% last I checked.
	You would immediately say, well, that's disproportionate.
	That's a disproportionate number because 13% of Americans are black people.
	So if 50% of the people in jail for murder are black, that must mean that something disproportionate is happening.
	That's criminal justice racism.
	Except that murder is a specific crime that is reported basically 100% of the time.
	And so the question is not the population of murderers Who are black compared to the population of blacks who are American, right?
	The question is the population of murderers who are black compared to the number of murder suspects who are black, right?
	In other words, was there a white suspect and they just went and arrested a black guy and threw him in jail.
	So the same thing is true of stop and frisk.
	If you actually want to talk about the proportionality of how many people were stopped and frisked by race, then you have to compare that to the reported crime rates.
	You can't compare that to the demographics.
	To take a quick example, heavy percentage of the population of New York City is Jewish.
	The crime rate in the Jewish community in New York City is extraordinarily low.
	Are we really going to suggest that the proportionality of people stopped and frisked has to be done not on the basis of crime reports or crime areas, but has to be done on the basis of sheer population?
	That would make no sense whatsoever.
	I mean, that's not what the police are there to do.
	So if you actually want to establish disproportionality, what you would have to do is demonstrate that the police are over-profiling, right?
	They are over-stopping and frisking Black and Hispanic people in comparison to the crime rate in New York City among Black and Hispanic people.
	So that is why all of the talk about stop and frisk disproportionately affecting black and hispanic people.
	It depends on what you are using as your numerator.
	It depends what you are using as your numerator.
	Are you using the demographic profile generally of New York or the criminal profile of New York, which is a different profile?
	The same thing would hold true if I were to say to you, 99% of people in jail for violent crimes are men.
	Is that disproportionate?
	Well, it's disproportionate in the sense that only 50% of the population of the United States, like every place else, is male.
	But it's not disproportionate in the sense that virtually all violent crime in the United States is committed by men.
	So, again, the same thing holds with stop-and-frisk.
	I'm just gonna give you a few statistics here, so you understand why stop-and-frisk policy is not inherently racist, despite the fact that a heavy percentage of the people who are stopped and frisked, and really a stop-question-and-frisk is the actual Supreme Court-approved policy.
	It's not that the police were supposed to be able to just walk up to people and then pat them down.
	It's supposed to be that you have a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying a gun or carrying a banned knife.
	By the way, if you've ever worked with police officers, I mean, I work with security all the time, right?
	I've been in rooms where the police who are working with me, where the officers who are working with me can spot a gun on somebody's hip, or they can spot a knife on somebody's hip, and they can do so with extraordinary accuracy.
	I mean, when you see people walking around a certain way for a long enough time, then you actually get pretty good at telling when they are carrying a foreign object on their body.
	In any case, Here are some of the statistics in New York City that Bloomberg is going to be talking about here.
	Okay, so this is according to Heather McDonald.
	She says, who is killing and shooting black crime victims?
	Overwhelmingly not whites, not the police, but tragically other blacks.
	The high black homicide victimization rate is a function of the black homicide commission rate.
	Blacks commit homicide nationally at seven times the rate of whites and most Hispanics combined.
	Black males between the age of 14 and 17 Commit homicide of 10 times the rate of white and most Hispanic males between the ages of 14 and 17.
	Officer-involved shootings are not responsible for the black homicide victimization rate either.
	In fact, a greater percentage of white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by a police officer than black homicide victims.
	In 2015, 12% of all whites and Hispanics who died of homicide were killed by cop, compared with 4% of black homicide victims who were killed by cop.
	Nor is white violence responsible for the black victimization rate.
	Blacks commit most interracial crime.
	Between 2012 and 2015, there were 631,830 violent interracial victimizations excluding homicide between blacks and whites.
	Blacks committed 85.5% of those violent victimizations, or 540,360 felonious assaults on whites, while whites committed 14.4% of those violent victimizations, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks.
	Here's the important part.
	14.4% of those violent victimizations or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks.
	Here's the important part.
	These national disparities are repeated locally.
	In New York City, for example, blacks, 23% of the population, committed 71% of all gun violence in 2016.
	Whites, who had 34% of the population, are the city's largest racial group, committed less than 2% of all shootings.
	Okay, so to go back to the proportionality argument that I am making here, if you were to compare the population of New York City, you would say, okay, well, 34% of the population is white, 34% of the people who are pulled over in stop-and-frisk should be white.
	Except that's stupid because whites Constitute 2% of all the shootings.
	So why would you frisk 34% of the people 34% of the time when it's really 2% of the crime?
	Why would you frisk them 34% of the time?
	It doesn't make any sense.
	These identifications, says Heather McDonald, are provided by the victims of and witnesses to those shootings, overwhelmingly minorities themselves.
	A black New Yorker is thus 50 times more likely to commit a shooting than a white New Yorker.
	In Chicago, blacks and whites are each a little under a third of the city's population.
	Blacks commit 80% of all shootings, whites a little over 1%, making blacks in the Windy City 80 times more likely to commit a shooting than whites.
	In Oakland, blacks committed 83% of homicides, attempted homicides, robberies, assaults with firearms, and assaults with weapons other than firearms in 2013, even though they constitute only 28% of Oakland's population.
	Whites were 1% of robbery suspects, 1% of firearm assault suspects, and an even lower percent of homicide suspects, even though they make up about 34% of the city's population.
	In Pittsburgh, 82% of known homicide suspects were black in 2015, even though the Pittsburgh population is just 26% black.
	In St.
	Louis, Nearly 100% of homicide suspects were black through December 22, 2017, though the population is 47% white and 47% black.
	And as Heather McDonald points out, the vast majority of black residents in high-crime areas and elsewhere are law-abiding and hardworking, and they deserve the same freedom from fear as residents of safer neighborhoods, and they beg for more proactive police enforcement, as reporters from the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post both discovered when covering the aftermath of the Freddie Gray riots.
	Okay, so she's not making a case.
	The racist case here would be that blacks are inherently more inclined to commit crime.
	No one is making that case because it's absurd and ridiculous on its face.
	The question is whether it is racist if you apply a stop-and-frisk policy that hits on a population level disproportionately particular groups, but on a crime level hits exactly proportionally Those particular groups, whether that is racist.
	OK, that is the backdrop to Michael Bloomberg's commentary.
	So we're going to get to what Michael Bloomberg actually said that has him trending as hashtag Bloomberg is racist in just one second, despite the fact that under Bloomberg's tutelage of the city, like really the one bright spot of his mayoralty was the continuing drop in crime rates in New York City that started under Rudy Giuliani and then continued on through Michael Bloomberg, largely because of policies like broken windows policing and stop and frisk policies that were taking place in New York City.
	Proactive policing, putting cops on street corners that were known to be high crime.
	The use of measures like ComStat in order to determine high crime areas and then target those exact precincts.
	All of that is really Bloomberg's major achievement.
	He's had to run against that because he's afraid of being labeled racist by the media.
	It's not going to save him one iota because as it turns out, he has said stuff defending his own record before.
	We're gonna get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the difficulty of going to an auto parts store when something breaks in your car.
	So, how often... This happened to me.
	Something breaks in my car.
	I don't know much about cars.
	I go to the auto parts store.
	Some guy, some schlub behind the counter, he tells me about some generic part that I can buy and then it's easy to install.
	Don't worry, you'll go home.
	It'll be easy to do.
	I go in.
	I buy the part.
	I go home.
	I have no clue how to install it because I'm not an auto expert.
	And not only that, the part doesn't fit anyway.
	I bring it to my mechanic and he's like, well, this is the wrong part.
	Why'd you even buy this thing?
	I'm not an auto expert, but if you are an auto expert, it's even worse, because why would you walk into an auto parts store and then buy some generic part for an overpriced price instead of getting the exact part that you need?
	This is why you need rockauto.com.
	The prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low, and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
	Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
	The RockAuto.com catalog is unique.
	It's remarkably easy to navigate.
	You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands, specifications, and prices you prefer.
	RockAuto.com has everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
	Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
	RockAuto.com.
	It's a family business.
	It serves auto parts customers.
	They've been doing it online for 20 years, which cuts out the middleman.
	Go to RockAuto.com right now.
	See all the parts available for your car or truck.
	You're not going to be able to do it any better anywhere else.
	Right, Shapiro in there, how did you hear about us box?
	And they know that we sent you.
	That's rockauto.com right now.
	See all the parts available for your car or truck right now.
	Right, Shapiro in that, how did you hear about us box?
	Okay, so back to stop and frisk policies and proactive policing.
	So the fact is, in the United States, crime rates between 1960 and 1994 spiked dramatically in major cities across the country.
	In the early 1990s, a lot of cities began to use proactive policing in order to lower crime rates.
	And the United States underwent one of the greatest crime transformations in history.
	We lowered our murder rate dramatically in major cities across the country.
	Okay, and that was because of proactive policing and broken windows policing and ComStat and yes policies like stop, question, and frisk.
	And these were applied in bipartisan fashion.
	Mayor Giuliani became Mayor Giuliani because David Dinkins wasn't going to do any of this stuff.
	Mayor Richard Reardon in LA became Mayor Richard Reardon because Democrats in LA were not doing this sort of stuff.
	The attempt to clean up crime was one of the major American success stories between 1994 and 2015 when there was sort of a reverse effect after some of the Ferguson riots and the so-called Ferguson effect where police started backing off out of fear that they were going to ruin their lives and careers if they engaged in proactive policing.
	Well, this was a bipartisan coalition that favored lowering crime and that bipartisan coalition included a lot of black legislators and a lot of black city council members who are sick of watching High crime neighborhoods affecting black people who are living in those high crime neighborhoods.
	Okay, so that's the backdrop to all of this.
	So Michael Bloomberg's great success story in New York City, really, is that he was able to continue lowering crime.
	And that's the only reason he can run for president.
	If he had not lowered crime, he'd be like Mayor Bill de Blasio, who had a complete failure of a campaign.
	Mayor Bloomberg's basic pitch is, I made the city of New York safer.
	I helped continue the transformation of Times Square from what was a squalid cesspool Into a pretty nice place to be.
	You can take your kids, you can walk around, it's kind of like Disneyland.
	Right?
	That is Bloomberg's pitch.
	But he's had to run directly away from that pitch because he's running directly into the teeth of a bunch of the woke warriors who suggest that proactive policing is inherently racist.
	Okay, so he's at the Aspen Institute.
	Now, the piece of audio you're about to hear, we don't hear the beginning of the audio.
	The reason I think this is kind of important, honestly, is because you don't know, it was a Q&A session, you don't know what question he was asked.
	So the way that the audio sounds, it's like he's volunteering that they were targeting black people.
	Maybe that's what he said, and if he did say that, then he is expressing this all wrong, right?
	In very bad fashion, but...
	If he was asked, which I have a feeling he was, why stop-and-frisk disproportionately affected black and Hispanic people, and he gave this answer, and the answer might be rough, but the answer is also based in fact, which is that the crime rates in the black and Hispanic community in New York City are dramatically higher than the crime rates in other areas of New York City.
	And this is why the police are in those areas, and this is why the arrest rates are disproportionate to population statistics.
	Okay, so here's what Bloomberg had to say at the Aspen Institute.
	It's got Bloomberg is racist trending, and we'll see if this has any impact on the race.
	I'm kind of doubtful that it does, honestly.
	Like, I'm kind of doubtful that you're going to see Bloomberg's support in the black community completely collapse in the same way that Trump's support in the Hispanic community did not completely collapse despite the fact that he was saying all of these kind of ridiculous and egregious things about immigration generally and about Mexicans and all this stuff because most people of Mexican descent who live in the country Who support Trump are not off put by the fact that Trump speaks in harsh language about illegal immigration.
	Most black people in America are not.
	I think that the amount of black support.
	for letting people out of prison who have committed crimes is way lower than the mainstream media would have you believe.
	I think the vast majority, I mean, I don't think, I know, the vast majority of black Americans are law-abiding people who want to live in safe communities.
	And so when they are told that the police are supposed to be out of their communities, the police are inherently bad and all of this, I don't think most black Americans believe that, which is why Joe Biden, who said a lot of similar things to what you're going to hear Bloomberg say right here, his support has not cratered with black Americans either.
	Here is Michael Bloomberg talking.
	This is supposedly the clip that's going to end his presidential bid.
	Yes, that's true.
	Why?
	Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods.
	Yes, that's true.
	Why do we do it?
	Because that's where all the crime is.
	is people say, oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana.
	They're all minorities.
	Yes, that's true.
	Why?
	Because we put all the cops in the minority hand.
	Yes, that's true.
	Why do we do it?
	Because that's where all the crime is.
	And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them.
	Okay, now he's saying this in the roughest and dumbest possible fashion, is to get the guns out of hands.
	You throw them up against the wall and you frisk them.
	Well, or, if you ask any police officer in your city, you stop, you question, and you frisk, right?
	That is the actual legal language.
	So, the minute-long excerpt, Bloomberg says, 95% of your murders, murderers and murder victims, fit one M.O.
	You can just take the description, Xerox it, and pass it out to all of the cops.
	Right, so this is why whether he was asked about the racial disproportion is sort of relevant to how he's answering.
	If he's defending the policy on the basis that it is disproportionate to the general demographic, then that's a problem.
	If he's defending the supposed disproportion on the basis of crime statistics, then he's saying it in rough fashion.
	What he's saying is basically correct, right?
	What he's saying is basically true on a factual level, which is that disproportionately the vast majority of crime victims From murder to violent crime to robbery in the city of New York are minorities.
	And the disproportionate number of perpetrators and suspects are members of these communities too.
	So who do you think that active policing is going to end up hitting more often?
	And this is also true for marijuana statistics.
	If you have more cops in high crime areas, and those high crime areas are disproportionately minority, then presumably, disproportionately, people who are smoking pot in front of the cops in those areas are going to be the ones who are arrested.
	When people say, why aren't the cops hanging out around Wall Street?
	Because there ain't street crime around Wall Street.
	That's why.
	Because the cops are where the street crime is.
	They are where the violent crime is.
	It's a completely different division that investigates white-collar crime.
	You want to up the white-collar crime element in New York City, you're not going to call NYPD when you see a white-collar crime.
	You're going to call a specific division, presumably, of the DOJ.
	You're not going to call, like, the beat cop.
	You're not going to flag down a cop car.
	You're not going to flag down a patrol car and be like, I saw a man engaging in insider trading in the elevator over on Wall Street.
	That's not how any of that works.
	And that's what Bloomberg is saying.
	He says that's true in New York.
	That's true in virtually every city.
	You want to spend the money to put a lot of cops on the street.
	Put those cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.
	Okay, well, that's awkwardly put, but that is true, which is that the crime is disproportionately in areas that have a disproportionate number of minorities.
	That just is the fact.
	Okay, so Bloomberg is getting excoriated for this.
	He then made a second statement about this that's also going around.
	We'll get to all of this in just one second and what this does to Michael Bloomberg's campaign hopes.
	First, let's talk about a fantastic Valentine's Day gift, like a very important Valentine's Day gift.
	So you have a special someone out there.
	And that special someone needs jewelry, okay?
	You know that this is true.
	And the fact that, like, my wife, big into jewelry.
	Where am I gonna get jewelry for my wife?
	I'm gonna go directly to the source.
	I'm gonna go to the Pearl Source.
	Why?
	Well, number one, I trust the people who run it.
	Like, I'm good friends with the people who run the Pearl Source.
	Absolutely trustworthy.
	Their stuff is just gorgeous.
	My wife has a pearl necklace from the Pearl Source.
	She has earrings from the Pearl Source.
	You can customize your jewelry at the Pearl Source.
	It's the largest selection of pearls available anywhere.
	Each jewelry piece It's custom made just for you.
	You can customize your jewelry based on pearl size quality, gold type length, and many more choices.
	And you're getting the highest quality pearl jewelry at up to 70% off retail prices.
	If you need it quickly for Valentine's Day, like you're running out because it's right around the corner, the Pearl Source offers free two-day shipping on every order.
	So like, do it right now and you're not gonna have to worry.
	Everything comes beautifully packaged in an elegant jewelry box, ready to be presented as soon as it arrives.
	If you're not sure she's gonna love the gift, no worries there either, because the Pearl Source comes with a no-hassle 60-day money-back guarantee.
	So it is indeed risk-free.
	For a limited time, listeners to my show can take an additional 14% off your entire order on Valentine's Day.
	Go to ThePearlSource.com slash Ben.
	Enter promo code Ben at checkout.
	You get 14% off your entire order for Valentine's Day.
	Alright, you got a couple days to make this thing right, dude.
	Don't screw it up.
	Go to ThePearlSource.com slash Ben.
	Enter promo code Ben at checkout.
	You get 14% off.
	Go straight to the source, The Pearl Source, again.
	Again, beautiful jewelry from people you can trust because I know them personally.
	I'm friends with the people who run the Pearl Source.
	Really, like I would trust them to watch my kids, let alone sell me jewelry.
	So go check them out right now.
	Thepearlsource.com slash Ben.
	Enter promo code Ben at checkout right now.
	Okay, so a second comment from Michael Bloomberg has materialized as well.
	Both of these are trending on Twitter because the way this works is that Michael Bloomberg's, again, his only pitch for being president of the United States is that he was a half-decent mayor of New York City.
	That involved lowering the crime rates.
	But in the Democratic Party, you're not supposed to run on lowering crime rates.
	You're supposed to run on wokeness.
	And that means that you're supposed to run on the basic presupposition that if a disproportionate number to the demographic population of blacks and Hispanics are arrested, that must reflect criminal justice racism as opposed to disproportionate crimes taking place They just keep saying, oh, it's a disproportionate percentage of a particular ethnic group.
	That may be, but it's not a disproportionate percentage of those who witnesses and victims describe as committing the murder.
	In that case, incidentally, I think we disproportionately stop whites too much.
	And minorities too little.
	Okay, that is 100% true.
	He's getting ripped up for this, right?
	How could he say this?
	What he just said on a factual basis is 100% true.
	On the basis of crime statistics, if you were just to compare crime reports to numbers of stops and frisks, what you see is that black and Hispanic suspects are being pulled over less frequently than they are charged in terms of the general crime statistics.
	So Bloomberg's getting ripped up and down, and presumably Bloomberg is going to come out and apologize.
	Now, if he had any stones, Bloomberg would say, listen, My policies helped save literally thousands of black and Hispanic lives in New York City.
	Proactive policing saves lives.
	If you want to lower crime rates, and that disproportionately affects people who are living in minority communities, which are high crime areas.
	If you want to increase the economic growth in those areas, you need more policing, not less.
	And this is why I've been very much questioning the criminal justice reform proposals of the Trump administration.
	I'm not sure that letting more criminals out onto the streets is a solution to the investment and growth problems in minority areas of the country.
	The going concern has been that there are too many black men in prison, that if they go back, they're going to...
	Go back to their kids, they're going to go back to their girlfriends or spouses, they're going to form nuclear families, they're going to be part of the rebuilding of the social fabric in these areas.
	That may be true for some, but a lot of these people are going to be recidivists, and then they're going to increase the crime rates in these particular communities.
	The fact is, one of the great miraculous stories of the last half century in the United States is the lowering crime rate between 1994 and 2015.
	To blow that on the basis of political correctness seems weird to me.
	And damaging.
	Highly damaging to minority Americans.
	But again, the media drive this stuff by suggesting that Stop and Frisk itself was inherently racist, as opposed to a reaction to the fact that there were high crime rates in New York City.
	Now, I will say this about Bloomberg.
	Openly says here that the problem of high crimes is largely relegated to big cities and unfortunately is Identifiable in minority communities particularly that a disproportionate number of gun suspects in New York City Like and he says like every other major city is happening among young minority males Okay, and then his proposal is to disarm all Americans.
	So I'm gonna need him to explain that one.
	I'm gonna, really, I need him to square that circle for me, because remember, he's one of the big gun control pushers, nationally.
	His suggestion is that everyone should have their gun taken away from them.
	Well, if you are in favor of targeted crime in things like stop and frisk, then why are you also in favor of broad crime policies that would remove guns from presumably tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who have nothing to do with elevated rates of crime in places like New York City?
	And by the way, if you look at state crime rates, they're disproportionately located in major cities.
	Okay, so we're gonna get to more of this in just a second, because is it possible that this is the end of sort of the Bloomberg hope?
	And if so, who does that leave standing?
	If Bloomberg starts to collapse and Biden is collapsing, well, that leaves really two, right?
	Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, because everybody is sort of starting to wake up to the fact that Bernie Sanders is going to be a disaster for their party, like really a disaster.
	Also, Bernie is, you know, he's kind of fibbing now, right?
	Like Bernie said he was gonna release his medical records, and now he's saying, well, not so fast.
	I don't need to release my medical records.
	Why would I release those records?
	They're not yours.
	They're mine.
	I guess we'll have to nationalize his medical records in order to see them.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about your life insurance policy.
	Now, let's say that you had taken out a life insurance policy on Joe Biden's campaign.
	Well, you would be cashing in right now because his campaign is just this far from being declared dead.
	But who could have foreseen that in the past?
	The answer is very few.
	It's very difficult to predict the future.
	This is why you should have life insurance.
	And it's also why you should have home insurance.
	It's why you should have disability insurance and auto insurance.
	You should have all the types of insurance you need because you can't tell what's going to happen in the future.
	Policygenius.com will compare your policy against options from top insurers and make sure, for example, on home insurance, that you are getting the right home insurance coverage at the best possible price.
	They've saved their customers an average of $690 per year doing just that.
	If Policygenius finds you a better rate than what you are currently paying, they'll do all the work to get you switched.
	If you own a car, PolicyGenius will compare your home and auto policies across different insurers.
	They'll even mix and match to find you savings.
	Get home insurance at PolicyGenius.com in minutes.
	You can get the ball rolling on a policy for a new home, or you can reshop your current policy.
	PolicyGenius, because let's be real about this, you can never predict the future.
	All you can do is make sure that you are insured against the possibility of disaster, and this is why Policy Genius is so helpful.
	If you're a responsible human being, you need insurance on all these things.
	Your life, home, auto, like all of these things.
	So go check them out right now at policygenius.com.
	Get it done quickly, get it done easily.
	The internet makes competitive shopping super easy, and Policy Genius helps you out on the insurance level.
	Policygenius.com, that's policygenius.com.
	Okay, we'll get back into this 2020 race in just one second.
	Last week, I told you about this awesome podcast, The Cold War, what we saw over the weekend, This podcast reached number one in history, podcast number five on all Apple podcasts.
	So now, you know, it's not just me saying it.
	It really is terrific.
	I mean, I've been listening to it myself.
	It's fantastic.
	The story is well told.
	The setting is brilliantly descriptive.
	You get a sense of what it was like to live through major events like the Berlin airlift, the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the space race.
	These milestones are tied together to give you a sense of the big picture, the apocalypse that never happened.
	They've already released two episodes of this 12-part series, so you have something to catch up on.
	You should go listen now because it has never been more relevant than this year, where the left has gone full-blown communist.
	I mean, Bernie Sanders would have been on, and was in many ways, on the wrong side of the Cold War, and now the Democrats want to nominate that guy.
	This podcast emphasizes the battle not only for capitalism, but for civilization itself, a battle that we have to refight in every generation.
	Just go to dailywire.com slash coldwar.
	Start listening to this incredibly important story.
	It is really superbly told.
	That is dailywire.com slash coldwar.
	Also, folks, if you haven't noticed already, this year is just wild.
	I mean, we're like not even halfway through February, and it is just crazy towns.
	Well, if you want all the updates, you really should go over to dailywire.com and become a member.
	And you can get comprehensive news and opinion from us on demand.
	We are giving you, right now, 20% off all memberships.
	This promotion is ending tomorrow, so don't wait any longer.
	Get 20% off all memberships when you use promo code DW2020.
	Members get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcast and show library, the full three hours of The Ben Shapiro Show, select bonus content, access to the mailbag, and now, my election insight op-eds.
	Plus, our new all-access tier gets you into live online Q&A discussions with me and Andrew Klavan and Matt Walsh and Michael Moles, plus our site's writers and special guests.
	Let us answer your questions, help you stay one step ahead of the rabid left.
	If you haven't already, download the Daily Wire app.
	Also, our app is fantastic.
	Like, it's really well-designed.
	Again, all of this is ending tomorrow.
	So don't wait or you're going to miss out.
	That's promo code DW2020 for 20% off.
	Like that ends tomorrow.
	Get it done right now.
	Join today.
	Stay informed on all things 2020.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty.
	So Michael Bloomberg supposedly going to take a serious hit for this audio.
	We will see whether that is just in the Twitter universe or whether that's in the real world because there's this massive divide between the Twitterati and the real world.
	The Twitterati will provide you with your base.
	They'll provide you with your core, right?
	That's what Bernie Sanders found out.
	Super active on Twitter.
	But are they really enough to drive you over the top?
	Now, I don't want to say that Twitter doesn't matter because Joe Biden basically said Twitter didn't matter and now Joe Biden Like both physically and also his campaign are sort of a smoldering wreck.
	But the fact is that Twitter is not real life.
	And so if Michael Bloomberg is going to collapse on the basis of this, we'll see.
	We'll see whether these comments actually make a difference.
	I'm pretty sure that everybody knew that Michael Bloomberg was the stop and frisk guy.
	The bigger problem for Michael Bloomberg is inauthenticity.
	If you campaigned on stop-and-frisk for years, and defended stop-and-frisk for years, and then five minutes ago, you decided to run as a Democrat for the presidential nomination, and then repudiated your own legacy, that's a problem.
	See, here's the thing about Bernie.
	He has never repudiated any form of his own legacy.
	Instead, he just says, but he's never repudiated anything he's ever said in the 60s and 70s.
	Joe Biden has spent half this campaign repudiating his own support for a 1994 crime bill, which contributed to, again, that lowered crime rate.
	None of these Democrats actually have the stones to just stand on their own record and say, yeah, I did that, and it may be unpopular now, but it was the right thing to do because it lowered crime rates and saved a lot of lives, specifically in minority communities.
	Bernie Sanders has never had to repudiate anything, because when you are radical and pure, you never have to repudiate anything you've ever said.
	It's funny.
	You'll see folks on the left very often.
	There'll be somebody on the right who says something, and it is racially tinged or racist, and people on the left will say, well, why didn't you oust this person earlier?
	And we'll be like, well, yeah, we did.
	Like, well, like, we did it now.
	Like, when Steve King came out and made ridiculous comments, and the entire Republican Party went, yeah, that's bad.
	We should probably condemn that and, like, not give him chairmanships and all that kind of stuff.
	And then the Democrats were like, well, why didn't you do that before with Steve King?
	Let me ask you a question.
	When was the last time a Democrat was ejected from the Democratic Party for anything ideological?
	Not for doing something corrupt, right?
	Not for doing something like sexual piccadillo or something.
	Doing something ideologically wrong.
	When was the last time a Democrat was ejected for being too far to the left, too radical?
	It has never happened.
	Like, the last time I can remember it happening was Cynthia McKinney when she was saying openly anti-Semitic things back in, like, 2003.
	And if Cynthia McKinney were around today, she would be part of the squad.
	Because what she was saying in 2003 is identical to the stuff that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib say today and are honored for inside the Democratic Party.
	So, again, it is pretty incredible that all of the Democrats who have accomplished things, like Michael Bloomberg, are going to have to repudiate their own policies unless you're a useless communist like Bernie Sanders, in which case you repudiate nothing, and then you get to run as the authentic candidate.
	And they're saying the quiet part out loud.
	Cynthia Nixon, who's a very wealthy actress from Sex and the City, and then she ran for governor against Andrew Cuomo and got absolutely smoked.
	Cynthia Nixon was rallying for Sanders.
	They had a big rally last night.
	And she said, we don't just want the crumbs anymore, the crumbs.
	We want the whole pie, which is just pure class warfare, garbage language.
	Can we explain something?
	What you get in the United States is not crumbs.
	What you get in the United States is a share of the greatest experiment in human history and also the greatest prosperity in human history.
	Like, where are these crumbs of which you speak, Cynthia Nixon, who's worth millions of dollars?
	Where are these crumbs?
	I'm confused.
	Bernie Sanders has a lake house.
	What are you talking about?
	Here's Cynthia Nixon basically suggesting that we nationalize all wealth and redistribute it because we want the whole pie.
	Who is we?
	And what is the whole pie?
	And why is it that you think the pie is fixed?
	Because you don't understand basic econ.
	Here's Cynthia Nixon rallying for Sanders.
	Because of Bernie Sanders and because of what he has spent his life doing and how he has changed this country in the last four years.
	He has taught me and he has taught us as a country what we can ask for.
	We have made do with crumbs for so long.
	And Bernie has said, hey, We're starving in this country.
	We can't subsist on these crumbs anymore.
	Why can't we demand the whole pie?
	Why can't we demand the whole pie?
	I mean, this is just pure Russian Revolution language, right?
	Why can't we demand?
	Demand from whom?
	From whom?
	Like, if you didn't create... You know, it's so funny.
	The folks on the left will say things like, Jeff Bezos, you didn't build that because there are roads, man, because there are roads.
	And it's like, well, OK, if we were going to just price in to Jeff Bezos' wealth, the value of roads that are publicly owned, would that represent like 1% of the value of Amazon?
	The fact that there are roads?
	Right, or would that represent, like, not all that much value at all compared to the vast majority of the brand building that Amazon has done?
	Or is it really the infrastructure that's responsible for that?
	Because if that's the case, then why doesn't Amazon exist in Estonia?
	Or Latvia?
	They have roads there, too.
	It turns out roads are pretty common and have been common since the Roman era.
	So, like, what are you talking about?
	But the same people who will say that Jeff Bezos didn't build that will proclaim that we want the whole pie.
	Well, you didn't build that, Cynthia Nixon.
	You didn't build any of that.
	What right do you have to demand something that you didn't build?
	This is why when people say that socialism is about altruism, it's not.
	It's about greed.
	It's about you didn't build that and now you want a piece of something that you didn't build because you are breathing and you are here.
	Well, guess what?
	That is not altruistic.
	That is just you being selfish.
	Socialism is inherently selfish because it demands.
	That's the whole point.
	You never hear a socialist talk about us giving.
	It's always what we demand.
	It's always what we want.
	It's like my three-year-old when he desperately wants another Popsicle.
	It's all about what you want.
	It's never about what you're willing to give.
	It's so funny.
	who are capitalists, tend to talk about the sacrifices that you make in order to engage in transactions.
	They tend to talk about the amount of work they do.
	When was the last time you heard a socialist talk about the amount of work they do, as opposed to what they demand for the work?
	Well, you can make a demand, but that demand should not be backed by a government gun.
	In any case, Bernie Sanders, he is now reversing himself on his medical records on Sunday.
	Sanders reversed his position on medical records, saying he would not release comprehensive medical records about his health, reneging on a promise he made in September that he would absolutely release his medical records before the Democratic primary season began.
	This is according to Hank Barian over at Daily Wire.
	Speaking on Sunday's Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd pointed out to Sanders what he had said in September before he had a heart attack in early October.
	Sanders doubled down in late October.
	He said, I want to make it comprehensive.
	I will probably by the end of the year.
	AP continued, campaign manager Faiz Shakir later said, more definitively, Sanders does plan to release the records by the end of December.
	But then he didn't.
	Chuck Todd said the first votes have already been cast.
	You didn't release your medical records.
	You released a few letters.
	Nobody interviewed your doctors.
	You did have a heart attack apparently.
	Shouldn't the voters see your medical records before Super Tuesday?
	Sandra said, we've released as much documentation, I think, as any other candidate.
	And Chuck Todd said, right, but nobody else had a heart attack in the last six months.
	And Sandra said, well, look, I am.
	No other candidate's doing four or five events running around the country.
	And Todd said, right, like you've proven your mettle, but you have reporters that are concerned about your age.
	And Sandra said, I mean, you can start releasing medical records and it never ends.
	We have released a substantive part, all of our backgrounds.
	We have doctors, cardiologists confirming I am in good health.
	Yahoo News notes that Sanders released three brief letters from doctors in December that declared he was in good health currently, but he has not released his full medical records.
	Which, again, he's not going to release those full medical records because that's the thing about heart attacks, guys.
	You look like you're really vital until the moment you have a heart attack, and then you don't look quite so vital, right?
	Sanders looked vital before the heart attack, then he had a heart attack.
	It would be good to know whether that heart attack is going to reoccur.
	Being in good medical health at this point does not suggest that you're going to be in good medical health two minutes from now if you don't release those medical records, but Bernie's not going to release that because he thinks he's going to win based on hiding that stuff.
	Also, The Democratic Party is getting more and more nervous about mobilizing behind Bernie Sanders.
	Dave Weigel, who's a Bernie kind of acolyte and fan, right?
	He has a piece today titled, Sanders may be on the verge of another New Hampshire win.
	Democrats aren't ready to get behind him.
	This is according to the Washington Post.
	He says that in the contest final hour, Sanders has minimized his own criticism of the party, pitching his campaign as a chance for the state to get things right and pick an electable candidate who will supercharge voter enthusiasm.
	But Sanders had already won New Hampshire once by a 21-point landslide.
	Unlikely to beat him here, rival candidates and skeptical voters are still asking whether Sanders and his movement could be trusted to win a general election.
	And you can see that people are very nervous about this.
	Gavin Newsom, the garbage governor of California, he says he's nervous about pretty much all the Democrats.
	He says that we're all anxious about Sanders and Bloomberg and Warren and all these people as well they should be.
	Talking to all the governors the last 48 hours, there's deep anxiety that we're not publicly communicating around what is potentially emerging as a Bernie Sanders ascendancy with the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party and the prospects, as you were mentioning in the last segment, that Bloomberg moves into that and you're in a place of civil war.
	It's not my point of view per se.
	But it is the anxiety that is, I think, spoken very much, universally spoken.
	Okay, well, you know, that, again, is the well-received wisdom inside the Democratic Party.
	Everybody is very nervous about Sanders, as well they should be.
	Meanwhile, President Trump has had a triumphal couple of weeks.
	He held a big rally again last night.
	People waited out in the rain and the snow for hours on end to get into Trump's rallies.
	Very entertaining dude.
	He said yesterday, We are indeed more enthusiastic than the Democrats.
	By the way, this is what the polls are showing, is that Republicans are in fact more enthusiastic than Democrats.
	And Bernie's turnout numbers are not good, right?
	Everybody is burying the lead in Iowa.
	The lead is not that Bernie Sanders performed well in Iowa or that Pete Buttigieg performed well in Iowa.
	It's that nobody showed up.
	That was Hillary Clinton's big problem in 2016.
	And the Democrats are betting, pure and simple, on the idea that Trump is unpopular to launch them to victory.
	This is Chris Hayes, right?
	Chris Hayes on MSNBC.
	He was saying, guys, we shouldn't be anxious.
	People don't like Donald Trump.
	Here's Chris Hayes trying to trying to gin up the base.
	It ain't going to work.
	The idea that this is some terrifyingly popular juggernaut is just not borne out by the facts.
	Almost all of what the president is doing and has done independent of the state of the economy, which is a big F, right?
	The stuff he's actually doing, almost all of it is wildly unpopular.
	He is weak.
	He's vulnerable.
	Politically, he's beatable.
	He wants you to believe that he's strong, but he's not.
	He is not a colossus.
	He's a con man.
	Okay, well, good luck with this, because this is exactly what Hillary Clinton said, and then nobody showed up, because it turns out nobody's enthused about what you guys are pitching.
	Here's Trump yesterday at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, drawing bigger crowds than any of the Democrats who are actually running for a nomination right now.
	Here is Trump saying, yeah, our enthusiasm is way bigger than the Democratic enthusiasm right now.
	You know, they always talk about the Democrats.
	They have enthusiasm, right?
	We have so much more enthusiasm than that.
	It's not even close.
	They're all fighting each other.
	They're all going after each other.
	You got them all over the place.
	They don't know what the hell they're doing.
	They don't know what they're doing.
	They can't even count their votes.
	Accurate.
	Fact check.
	True.
	Fact check.
	What are the Democrats going back to?
	They're going back to the sort of chiding.
	George Conway is so desperate at this point.
	Kellyanne's husband.
	He is so he is so desperate at this point.
	He is suggesting preemptively impeaching Trump again.
	Again.
	Not kidding.
	Washington Post opinions today.
	Trump is right.
	We might have to impeach him again.
	He says, with essentially no pretense about why he was doing it, the president brazenly retaliated Friday against two witnesses who gave truthful testimony in the House's impeachment inquiry.
	He fired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a U.S.
	ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, and he also fired a third man, Lieutenant Colonel Yevgeny Vindman, merely for being the brother of the first.
	This is part of, by the way, of a broader cut down in federal staffing, so it's not wholly true that this was just about going after these people.
	Trump essentially admitted his retaliatory motive on Saturday when he tweeted that he sacked Vindman in part for having reported content of my perfect calls incorrectly.
	If this were a criminal investigation and Alexander Vindman and Sondland had given their testimony to a grand jury, this Friday night massacre could have been a crime.
	At the very least, it ought to be impeachable.
	If Richard Nixon was to be impeached for authorizing hush money for witnesses, Yeah, good luck with this.
	Good luck with this.
	It's just not going to fly.
	You took your shot.
	You missed.
	Is this a move that Trump should have made?
	for complying with subpoenas and giving truthful testimony about presidential misconduct should make for a high crime or misdemeanor as well.
	So let's impeach him again.
	Yeah, good luck with this.
	Good luck with this.
	It's just not going to fly.
	You took your shot.
	You missed.
	Is this a move that Trump should have made?
	No, it's politically stupid.
	But for Trump, the rip on Vindman is that Vindman was deliberately misinterpreting what he was saying because he doesn't like Trump personally and didn't like his Ukraine policy that it had nothing to do with Trump actually committing a crime per se.
	Okay, so George Conway saying let's impeach him again.
	You get this from Pelosi, too.
	Republicans have normalized lawlessness.
	Good luck with all of this.
	It's just not going to cut it.
	It really is not.
	So this is the problem for Democrats.
	They've got an octogenarian socialist who is now running away with this thing.
	Bernie is not only the frontrunner, he's now the prohibitive frontrunner because nobody else is rising.
	They just took a shot at Michael Bloomberg, who is the only person who is in the mode of Joe Biden.
	Biden is collapsing.
	Bloomberg is coming under heavy fire.
	Pete Buttigieg is the only one who is sort of left standing.
	Unless Amy Klobuchar shows really strong in New Hampshire, there is no moderate opposition.
	The moderates have flipped six ways from Sunday, and Bernie's going to run away with this thing.
	That's just the way it is.
	By the way, Amy Klobuchar should win.
	If the Democrats had any brains at all, they would be taking a second look at Amy Klobuchar.
	She's the only candidate who has won in a purple state and won repeatedly.
	And when Elizabeth Warren was saying, I've won a Senate seat in Massachusetts.
	Yeah, you could slap a blue D on a bag of dog crap in Massachusetts and it would win a Senate seat.
	And they effectively do that every six years in Massachusetts.
	But in Minnesota, you actually have to be pretty good at politics.
	Klobuchar happens to be a talented politician with actually a pretty stellar intellectual background.
	And this is not coming from somebody who agrees with Klobuchar a lot.
	Like, I disagree with her tremendously.
	But the Democrats are fools not to be looking seriously at Klobuchar and instead be looking at, like, Pete Buttigieg, who's the mayor of seven people.
	And whose father was a Gramsci scholar.
	Antonio Gramsci was one of the founders of the Marxist movement in Italy in 1918-1919.
	And his dad, so Buttigieg's dad was like the guy on Gramsci.
	Gramsci, Gramsci.
	Can't remember how to pronounce it.
	In any case, they've got a bunch of radicals and Klobuchar.
	Maybe Klobuchar shows strong in New Hampshire and that changes the race.
	Maybe Bloomberg starts to pick something up.
	It's looking a lot like Bernie.
	A lot like Bernie.
	And for Trump, Trump is licking his chops.
	Trump is just waiting to drop those attack ads against Bernie Sanders.
	As well he should be because guess what?
	Nancy Pelosi yelling about Trump, it's all priced in.
	It is all priced in at this point.
	So that is where things stand.
	I will say that there was a great ironic moment.
	If there are mathematical rounding errors, why can't those be adjusted?
	still has not really finalized the results.
	Like they're finally finalizing the results, but they're re-canvassing and all this.
	The Iowa Democratic chair yesterday was caught on tape explaining the disastrous caucuses.
	And while he was doing so, the sign in front of him that said, Iowa Democratic Party fell down.
	It was pretty spectacular.
	If there are mathematical rounding errors, why can't those be adjusted?
	Because these sheets are signed not only by the precinct chair and the precinct secretary, they're also signed by campaign representatives.
	And so for us, they are the official record of what took place in the room.
	Even he is realizing that this is like a disaster area.
	It is a disaster area for Democrats.
	By the way, in the prediction markets, in the betting markets, Michael Bloomberg is now running second to Bernie Sanders.
	Pete Buttigieg is trailing in third and Biden is all the way down at fourth in the betting markets.
	The collapse of Joe Biden is going to be something for the record books.
	It really is.
	It's pretty impressive.
	Meanwhile, by the way, as I say, Elizabeth Warren may be done after this, which consolidates some of the vote for Bernie.
	Presumably some of the Warren voters move over to Bernie, but many of those Warren voters could theoretically move over to Klobuchar.
	And there are reports that Democrats are depressed.
	Really, there is serious depression setting in for Democrats because they are looking at this field, and this field is a bag of nothing.
	I mean, Michael Tamasky has a piece over at the Daily Beast today called, They're voting in New Hampshire, but this Democrat just wants to jump off a bridge.
	This Democrat just wants to jump off a bridge.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He says, New Hampshire is voting.
	I remember when this used to be an exciting day.
	It's not exciting now.
	It's depressing.
	I'm depressed.
	Almost everybody I know, every Democrat anyway, is depressed.
	It's a mess.
	Iowa's a bleep show and shouldn't be first anyway.
	New Hampshire shouldn't be second.
	It's totally preposterous.
	Yet the party lacks the stones to tell these self-important second-tier states to go stuff it.
	The candidates don't look like winners.
	The party looks like it might be headed toward a face-off between a billionaire and a man who wants to ban billionaires, neither of them really Democrats, and Donald Trump is gonna be reelected.
	That is a hell of a take from one of your fans, Democratic Party.
	Well done.
	All they had to do was not be crazy.
	And they couldn't do it.
	And every time it looks like they might pull back from the brink of being crazy, they just go right back in it again.
	Okay, let's get to a couple of things that I hate.
	We're going to skip things I like today.
	today, we're going to go directly to things that I hate.
	Things that I hate, number one.
	So there's an article by Kate Wagner in the New Republic, and she's very, very upset about a new order, a proposed executive order titled, Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.
	The order essentially forces a rewrite of the 1962 Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, which mandated that an official architectural style must be avoided for federal buildings, and that new buildings should be exemplary of the time in which they are built.
	Right, so this means that you have ugly-ass buildings all over Washington, D.C., because the 1960s and 1970s were the home of what were called the Brutalist architecture.
	Now, that name is pretty descriptive, Brutalism.
	It's actually named after the French for concrete, which is called Bruté, I believe.
	My French is horrible.
	In any case, basically, you end up with monstrosities like this.
	This is the FBI building, which looks like it's something directly out of the Panopticon.
	I mean, it looks like something out of dystopian horror film.
	This brutalist architecture with overt concrete, windows buried inside layers of concrete, metal bars on the windows.
	I mean, this thing is just a hideous piece of crap.
	And then, contrast that with, like, the Supreme Court building.
	So the Supreme Court building is a gorgeous piece of building, right?
	I mean, this is classical Roman architecture.
	Or Greek architecture.
	Looks like the Parthenon.
	It's beautiful.
	I mean, there's a beautiful building.
	The White House is a beautiful building.
	Go back to the Brutalist piece of crap.
	That one is from, like, 1965.
	The FBI's building from 1965.
	And, again, go back to, let's see, the Brutalist piece.
	This thing is just a horrific piece of garbage.
	And a lot of Washington, D.C.
	looks like that.
	It's not the only horrific piece of garbage in Washington, D.C.
	These sorts of things age badly.
	Now, listen, I'm no interior decorator, but let me just say that if you were going to build something for all time, not just for the Whim of the moment.
	And you're putting carpets down your den.
	You don't get the green shag carpet from the 1970s.
	That thing's going to be obsolete inside of seven years.
	What instead you do is you tend to build in time-tested and honored tradition.
	And this is true for great cities all over the world.
	Great cities all over the world are built in particular style.
	If you were to build brutalist architecture in the center of Paris, it would mar the landscape, obviously.
	In Jerusalem, you must, by law, build things from Jerusalem stone so that all of the city is of a piece.
	Right, so the new executive order was to suggest that we stop building crap like that and instead we build some of these classical buildings, right, which are much better looking.
	They are much nicer looking, they're more beautiful, they stand the test of time.
	Nobody goes and gawks at the front of the FBI building.
	Nobody does that.
	Instead, people tend to go to the major sites in Washington, D.C.
	that are nicer looking and don't look like they have aged.
	I mean, the White House is a beautiful building, just aesthetically.
	It's a very pleasing building.
	But according to this article by Kate Wagner, you're a racist if you push for classical federal buildings.
	A racist!
	The proposition put forth by this new executive order, which is spearheaded by the National Civic Arts Society, a conservative non-profit, would essentially scrap the old guidelines in favor of a mandate that establishes a classical style inspired by Greek and Roman architecture as the default.
	The American Institute of Architects swiftly published vehement denunciations of the plan on the grounds it would stifle architecture and violate the free thought and artistic expression that are essential to a democracy.
	Comparisons have already been made to Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.
	Really?
	Like, because you're building nice buildings?
	That's like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin?
	I mean, people should actually, like, take a look at Stalinist architecture.
	It's hideous.
	It's hideous garbage.
	If you actually go and look at the old Soviet architecture, it's really, really horrible looking.
	The abrupt aesthetic reversal heralded by this executive order has some obvious underpinnings, beginning with the fact that the reversion to a mandatory classical style reflects the architectural philosophies of white supremacists online.
	Oh, so it was the 4chan folks who decided that they wanted beautiful buildings.
	I'm confused.
	Don't diverse people like good-looking buildings?
	It seems pretty obvious to me that that FBI building is a piece of crap.
	It seems pretty obvious to everybody who's ever walked by it, but apparently that makes you a racist.
	This is the inevitable result of an architectural faux-populism that has been sown in the conscience of American architecture since postmodernism.
	The effort to stifle aesthetic expression in public architecture by instating a mandatory style is wrong for all the reasons that the AIA and the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board lay out in opposition.
	The proposal Speaking as an architecture critic, this is insane and borderline totalitarian.
	Weird.
	Because the same people who say that we shouldn't have lobbyists deciding exactly how anything is done in Washington, D.C.
	Artists, architects, engineers, art or architecture critics, members of the building industry, or any other members of the public that are affiliated with any interest group or organization involved in architecture.
	Speaking as an architecture critic, this is insane and borderline totalitarian.
	Weird, because the same people who say that we shouldn't have lobbyists deciding exactly how anything is done in Washington, D.C.
	Say that architecture lobbyists should decide how architecture is done in Washington, D.C.
	Whether we like to admit it or not, says this New Republic columnist, Trump is an architectural president.
	Like all building peddlers, Trump is subjected to the gaze of architecture critics who have occasionally praised his work but have mostly often panned it.
	Though Trump has put up buildings ranging from 19th century retrofits to late modern skyscrapers, his personal style is a combination of 2000s bling and Louis XIV.
	His choice of modernism for the style of the Trump Towers in Chicago and New York can simply be explained away by the fact that modern all-glass buildings, our hegemonic aesthetic signature of corporate capitalism, is the style of big business.
	Okay, so hold on a second.
	Most of Trump's architecture is not this stuff.
	But somehow Trump's fascist tendencies lead to a preference for neoclassical architecture?
	Eventually, this columnist admits, neoclassical architecture isn't always a right-wing dog whistle.
	Yeah, because it's almost never a right-wing dog whistle.
	Most architects are required to learn about it in their architectural history classes.
	Many architects train at architecture schools, most notably the University of Notre Dame, that specialize in traditional Western architectural language.
	These architects sometimes go to work on new buildings.
	Many apply their trade in restorations.
	There is beauty and nuance in classical architecture.
	So what exactly are you whining about?
	But apparently, if you don't want those hideous, brutalist buildings, then you're a racist.
	So, good news there from the nation.
	Okay, other things that I hate today.
	So David Brooks has an extraordinarily long piece in The Atlantic today, talking about the nuclear family and suggesting the nuclear family was a mistake.
	He says, the family structure we've held up as the cultural ideal for the past half century has been a catastrophe for many.
	It's time to figure out better ways to live together.
	So David Brooks, as he so often does, strings together a bunch of true statements to come up with a false conclusion.
	This article basically suggests that the concept of the nuclear family is inherently bad.
	That the nuclear family is somehow created at the expense of extended family and community and society building.
	That is basically his premise.
	So what he says is that we should get rid of this concept of the nuclear family.
	It's past its time.
	Never really applied anyway.
	It only applied for a short period of time and only when brutal sexism was in order.
	And instead, we need to create new social networks that we're supposed to do without churches.
	We're supposed to do it without nuclear families that work with one another.
	It's absolute horse crap.
	So he comes up with, he critiques The nuclear family existing in isolation without extended family.
	But then his solution is not, okay, well, we need the nuclear family and the extended family.
	His solution is the nuclear family no longer exists, so we have to build these tribal structures around non-nuclear families.
	And he comes up with, like, all the wrong solutions.
	So here's what David Brooks has to say about the nuclear family.
	And this, again, is a failure to recognize that old standards of morality, when it comes to the nuclear family, that you need a mom and a dad and kids, and that you should have grandparents around, and that government structures, by the way, totally undercut that, right?
	What Social Security actually did in many cases was prevent Children from feeling the need to take care of their parents because Social Security was going to do that.
	It used to be 50, 60 years ago before Social Security got enormous, that everybody sort of assumed that when your parents got older, you were going to have to build a mother-in-law unit on your house and then your mother-in-law is going to have to stay there.
	I mean, they were literally called mother-in-law units.
	There was always the assumption that as your parents age, you're going to have to take care of them.
	But government incentives changed that structure.
	In any case, David Brooks, he starts again from the right premises and ends in the wrong place, which is so typical of people who are unwilling to admit that maybe we've gotten a few things wrong over the past 60 years in terms of social policy, particularly with regard to the differences between the sexes and the necessity of having a mother and a father.
	David Brooks says, the scene is one.
	Many of us have somewhere in our family history, dozens of people celebrating Thanksgiving or some other holiday around a makeshift stretch of family tables.
	Siblings, cousin aunts, uncles, great aunts.
	The grandparents are telling old family stories for the 37th time.
	The old sirs start squabbling about whose memory is better after the meal.
	There are piles of plates in the sink.
	Squads of children conspiring mischievously in the basement.
	Groups of young parents huddle in a hallway making plans.
	This particular family is the one depicted in Barry Levinson's 1990 film, Avalon, based on his own childhood in Baltimore.
	As the years go by, in the movie, the extended family plays a smaller and smaller role.
	By the 1960s, there's no extended family at Thanksgiving.
	It's just a young father and mother and their son and daughter eating turkey off trays in front of the TV.
	In the final scene, the main character is living alone in a nursing home, wondering what happened.
	This is the story of our times.
	The story of the family, once a dense cluster of many siblings and extended kin, fragmenting into ever smaller and more fragile forms.
	The initial results of that fragmentation, the nuclear family, didn't seem so bad.
	But then, because the nuclear family is so brittle, the fragmentation continued.
	In many sectors of society, nuclear families fragmented into single-parent families, single-parent families into chaotic families, or no families.
	Okay, this is where his narrative goes off the rails.
	So it is true that when you create a family structure, you should do so, and you should look to do so, in places where you have support structures.
	We talk about this on my show all the time, right?
	I live within a mile of my parents.
	Why?
	Well, because today, for example, I have like an errand that I need to run with my daughter.
	I'm working and my wife has an appointment.
	My dad is picking up the slack, right?
	When we have our next baby, which should come sometime in the next few weeks.
	When that happens, my parents are going to step in and help.
	We deliberately live close to my parents in order to make this happen.
	By the way, with travel now, it is also true.
	That having an extended family that is available to you is much more possible than ever before.
	When my sister, who lives over on the East Coast, has a problem, she calls my parents and my mom gets on the next plane and she's over there and just stays with them to help out.
	Or when my wife has this baby, her parents are going to come down and they're going to help out too.
	Like having extended family available is obviously necessary.
	Not only that, having an extended tribe, and by tribe I don't mean genetically associated, I mean a group of people with whom you have a common interest available is really good.
	Like when my wife has her baby, and this happens with every baby in our Jewish community, whenever somebody has a baby, for the next three weeks every meal is taken care of.
	Like somebody in the family, we actually have like a full schedule online, and we will all claim a meal, and we'll all drop off a meal with the family of the baby that was just born, so that the wife doesn't have to cook, the mom doesn't have to cook.
	For like three weeks to make sure that she's able to take care of the kid, and take care of the dad too, and all of that.
	Right?
	It is true you need social structures.
	But what's weird about David Brooks' piece is that his argument is that the nuclear family was a myth.
	No, the nuclear family is an inherent part of this.
	The nuclear family exists with the rest of the social structure.
	David Brooks concludes in this piece that basically extended clans fell away, the nuclear family was left, and the nuclear family wasn't strong enough to bear all the pressures that were put on it by outside forces.
	Well, that's sort of true, and it's sort of not, because as David Brooks acknowledges, the nuclear family is still the standard in high-income America.
	Now, he says that's because it's easier to have a nuclear family when you're high-income.
	This is completely reversing logic.
	The reality is that one of the reasons people are low-income is because they do not form nuclear families as often.
	One of the greatest intergenerational predictors of poverty is not forming a nuclear family.
	It's being a single mom, right?
	You don't have as much social structure available to help with your kids.
	This is one of the lead predictors of criminal engagement by your children.
	It's one of the lead indicators of intergenerational poverty.
	So Brooks gets it all backwards.
	He says that only rich people can afford to have a nuclear family.
	No, that is wrong.
	The reason, one of the major reasons that rich people are rich is because they make good decisions about their family, right?
	As I've cited before, if you want to be not poor in America, permanently poor in America, do three things.
	Graduate high school, get a job, don't have a baby before you're married.
	That's it.
	Those are the only three things.
	And if you violate those three things, you're going to be poor, right?
	Or at least there's a better shot that you're going to be poor in the United States by leaps and bounds.
	But Brooke seems to assume that it's harder to form a nuclear family these days, when the truth is, it's actually easier than ever to form a nuclear family these days.
	It really is.
	It is simple to form a nuclear family.
	You walk down to, like, of all sorts, by the way, you walk down to a government office, you get a document.
	Now you are married.
	And what has changed?
	Other than you have to file as joint income filers, which is actually a marriage penalty the government should get rid of.
	Other than that, you get child tax credits.
	There are all sorts of benefits that are available to you as a married couple.
	Two are now living for the price of one, to a certain extent.
	Because when I got married with my wife, my expenses really did not rise all that much, but our income did.
	If she had been working.
	She was a student at the time.
	But David Brooks, what he's really doing is he's lamenting the death of extended family.
	That is fair.
	But to lament the death of extended family by crapping on the nuclear family is completely bizarre.
	He says extended families have two great strengths.
	The first is resilience.
	An extended family is one or more families in a supporting web.
	Your spouse and children come first, but there are also cousins, in-laws, grandparents, a complex web of relationships among say 7, 10, 20 people.
	If a mother dies, siblings, uncles, aunts, grandparents are there to step in.
	If a relationship between a father and a child ruptures, others can fill the breach.
	Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job.
	A detached nuclear family, by contrast, is an intense set of relationships among, say, four people.
	If one relationship breaks, there are no shock absorbers.
	In a nuclear family, the end of the marriage means the end of the family as it was previously understood.
	All of that is true.
	It is also true that if you want an extended family, you know what's very helpful?
	Having two parents involved in the extended family.
	Even in the stories I'm telling about my own family, my parents are involved, my wife's parents are involved, right?
	We now have two sets of grandparents who are able to pitch in.
	My wife's siblings can come over and babysit.
	My siblings are available if we need help, and I'm available to them.
	In order to build a big web, a network of relationships, you do have to have a nuclear family at the center.
	The reason that I'm pushing this is that the title of this article is that the nuclear family was a mistake.
	No, the death of the extended family was a mistake.
	The nuclear family is a longtime part of human history, and his case that he makes that the nuclear family didn't exist until the 1950s is obviously untrue.
	It's obviously untrue.
	When people were expanding across the continent of the United States, Was the nuclear family not a part of that?
	When people have expanded throughout human history, was the nuclear family not a part of that?
	And what exactly is he calling for?
	A replacement of the nuclear family by a social structure that is going to have... It takes a village.
	It does take a village, but it takes a family within the village.
	And it takes families networking with other families in that village.
	So this call for the replacement of the nuclear family is quite bizarre by David Brooks.
	And that is where he ends up.
	He ends up suggesting that the cure for lack of fathers in the African-American family, fathers sticking around in the home, is social networks.
	Well, that can help.
	It certainly can.
	But you know what the leading indicator is of help in those social networks?
	Fathers in the surrounding areas.
	Harvard did a study where it talked about lack of fathers in the black community and it said that a lack of one father in the black community can be replaced as long as the surrounding community has a high percentage of fathers.
	In other words, you do need nuclear families.
	It can't just be a matriarchy taking care of a bunch of kids with no fathers present at all because they've created a social network.
	That is simply not going to cut it.
	But David Brooks ends up here.
	He says, in other words, social conservatives have a philosophy of family life they can't operationalize because it is no longer relevant.
	Because it is no longer relevant.
	Why is that no longer relevant?
	Why?
	Like, seriously.
	He says it's no longer relevant because women want to work and because the idea of a nuclear family rests on the fact that women have to stay home.
	No, it doesn't.
	If you have an extended family, then everybody sort of shares the burdens.
	But you need the nuclear family, again, to provide that core.
	He says the sexual revolution has come and gone.
	And it's left us with no governing norms of family life, no guiding values, no articulated ideals.
	And so the progressives have no philosophy of family life at all because they don't want to seem judgmental.
	So instead, we want to redefine kinship.
	Here's his solution.
	He says, Well, again, now he's just talking about the loss of community generally, with which I totally agree, but I don't understand why this is supposed to come at the expense of the nuclear family.
	He says, back in the 17th and 18th centuries when European Protestants came to North America, their relatively individualistic culture existed alongside the Native Americans' very communal culture.
	In his book, Tribes, Sebastian Junger describes what happened next.
	While European settlers kept defecting to go live with Native American families, almost no Native Americans ever defected to go live with European families.
	Europeans occasionally captured Native Americans and forced them to come with them.
	They taught them English and educated them in Western ways, but almost every time they were able, the indigenous Americans fled.
	European settlers were sometimes captured by Native Americans.
	They rarely tried to run away.
	When you read such accounts, you can't help but wonder whether our civilization has somehow made a gigantic mistake.
	It's a very weird example to choose, given the fact that the nuclear family and extended kin were a hallmark of American life for most of American history.
	He says, our culture is oddly stuck.
	We want stability and rootedness, but also mobility, dynamic capitalism, and the liberty to adopt the lifestyle we choose.
	We want close families, but not the legal, cultural, and sociological constraints that made them possible.
	We've seen the wreckage left behind by the collapse of the detached family.
	Yet recent science suggests the possibility a new family paradigm is emerging.
	And here's where he gets to his, his kind of, his punchline.
	He says, many of the statistics I've cited are dire, but they describe the past.
	Americans are now experimenting with new forms of kinship and extended family in search of stability.
	He says that we're moving into a new cultural paradigm.
	Why?
	Because kids are staying around with their parents and this is creating new networks.
	No, this is incorrect.
	Again, because you have now said that a kid who is 30 staying with mom and dad is the same as a kid who is 30 married with three kids living within a mile of mom and dad.
	Not the same thing.
	If you're going to create kinship networks, the nuclear family remains at the center of that.
	And then he has this very weird situation where he says African Americans have always relied on extended family more than white Americans do.
	He says, the black extended family survived even under slavery and all the forced family separations that involved.
	Family was essential in the Jim Crow South.
	All of this is true.
	And then he said, government policy sometimes made it more difficult for this family form to thrive.
	That is also true, but this happened identically at the same time as the death of nuclear family in the black community.
	But you're gonna need a lot of nuclear families to make a network.
	So bottom line here is the nuclear family was not a mistake.
	The nuclear family is, was, and will continue to be since biblical times, the standard for human living.
	The question is whether we can create social fabric, and that requires commonality of interest.
	And this is the thing that Brooks is unwilling to say.
	The bottom line is, all of the areas of American life typically in which nuclear families have formed the core of a broader social network happen inside religious communities.
	And he's unwilling to say that people need to get involved in social networking via common interest again, because the bottom line is, as common interest fragments, And, as nuclear family fragments, there's nothing left to hold us together.
	And that is a bigger problem.
	So we need two things to happen.
	One, make responsible decisions about your own childbearing and rearing.
	Get married, have babies, and two, you need a social network of common interest, and that involves seriously thinking about your own values and getting involved with others on a social level.
	And yes, that might mean that we might need to go back to church at a higher level.
	Okay, so there you have it.
	We will be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow for the recap of the New Hampshire primaries.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Assistant director Pavel Lydowsky.
	Technical producer Austin Stevens.
	Playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan.
	Associate producer Katie Swinnerton.
	Edited by Adam Siovitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
	But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

▲