All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show
52:18
You’ll Miss The Cops When They’re Gone | Ep. 1031
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Supreme Court comes down with an enormous decision on LGBT issues, a black man is shot in Atlanta by police and new violence breaks out, and a New York Times op-ed says the quiet part out loud.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Today's Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Your online activity should not be public.
Protect yourself at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Well, we're going to get to all of the unrest in Atlanta.
We're going to get to the circumstances of a shooting in Atlanta that may well end with a prosecution, although it certainly should not.
But we begin at this hour with a big decision that just came down from the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court has decided without any evidence, without really any support, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act now protects on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Which is relatively insane because Title VII obviously did not mean, and the court acknowledges this, did not mean to deal with gay and lesbian issues or transgender issues.
The notion of gender identity was not even familiar to people in 1964 when the Congress of the United States was passing Title VII, which prohibits Any sort of discrimination on a federal level on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Now, the Supreme Court is making the absurd contention that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which, by the way, people knew that folks were gay and lesbian in 1964.
They did not include that in Title VII.
Not only that, but Congress has repeatedly attempted to and failed to include sexual orientation in updates of Title VII.
They failed because that's pretty controversial stuff.
I mean that's talking about, for example, you're a Catholic hospital, and now you are mandated to violate your own religious precepts in hiring gays and lesbians or transgender people.
It is something that the Democratic Party has been pushing for a very long time, but it's a controversial issue because it is not included in Title VII.
Title VII was meant to say that if you are a woman, that you cannot be prohibited against on the sole basis that you are a woman.
Not that you are a gay woman, for example.
Not that you are a gay man.
But on the basis that you are a man, you cannot be discriminated against.
And on the basis that you are a woman, you cannot be discriminated against.
Well now the Supreme Court has gone back in time and magically course-corrected to include sexual orientation and transgender identity.
in federal civil rights legislation that obviously was not meant to be there.
So now the idea is that if Bob walks into your place of employment tomorrow, and you're a large company, you have over 50 employees, Bob walks into your place of employ tomorrow, and he says, my name is Gene.
I wish you'd call me Gene.
You say, well, Bob, you know, that doesn't really fit your job description.
And like, that's not something that we're ideologically okay with here.
You're now in violation of federal civil rights law, right?
That is the idea under this decision.
Now, there may or may not be an exception for openly religious organizations.
So, not Catholic hospitals, which do a secular business, or Catholic adoption agencies, which do a secular business, but you work for a church, or you work for a Catholic school, right?
That may be part of the job description, is that you abide by Catholic doctrine or Catholic teachings.
But, for example, there are a lot of Catholic schools that have sort of religious studies in the morning, and then they have secular studies in the afternoon.
But they also do not want people in the afternoon courses who may not be Catholic, for example, to be openly violating certain religious precepts.
And so they say, listen, we teach at the school that certain types of human activity are sinful, and we don't want our teachers engaged in that.
Theoretically, that could now be illegal.
If you're a religious person and you own a corporation, you say, listen, people who work at my corporation, I just don't want them participating in certain types of activity that I don't like.
Well now, that would be the basis for a lawsuit.
What is left completely unclear here is whether it is the basis for a lawsuit, whether, let's say, you abide by this new ruling and a transgender person comes in, you hire the transgender person, but you are a conservative company and you say, as I do and as Daily Wire has said, that a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Does that now amount to discrimination under federal law?
It is not clear under this particular provision of the Supreme Court decision.
This is a very far-reaching decision.
It's a very bad decision.
And the part of it that's quite shocking is that Justice Gorsuch wrote the decision.
Now if you listen to the oral arguments way back in February, it was pretty obvious which way Gorsuch was going to go on this thing.
It was pretty obvious always where Roberts was going to go because Roberts is a garbage justice.
But Gorsuch, who is widely perceived to be a textualist, His attempt to shoehorn textualism into this decision is insane.
I mean, it's really wild.
Because the fact is that what a textualist would do, or an originalist, is they would read the text of the statute, and look at the meaning of the statute at the time, and say what it meant, or what it did not mean.
They would not say, oh yes, we've updated the wording now, so now it means something completely different than what it meant back in 1964.
But that's exactly what Gorsuch does here.
So Gorsuch says, we agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex.
Okay, that should be the end of the inquiry, right?
Once you say that homosexuality and transgender status are not sex, right, that's a completely different concept, then you have to make the argument that presumably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 talks about discrimination on the basis of sex, not on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status or sexual orientation or any of that.
But, says Gorsuch, as we've seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex.
The first cannot happen without the second.
Nor is there any such thing as a canon of donut holes in which Congress's failure to speak directly to a specific case that falls within a more general statutory rule creates a tacit exception.
Okay, that's not true at all.
Okay, if it is perfectly obvious that Congress has repeatedly attempted to fill a donut, And that the donut has not been filled.
And it's pretty obvious that Congress itself perceived that the donut had not been filled.
In other words, it's not that Congress created this overarching penumbra and emanation that the Supreme Court was supposed to fill in.
The idea instead was that Congress was being very specific about what it wished to prohibit.
You have a job.
All you know about the applicants is that one is a man and one is a woman.
You cannot discriminate solely on the basis of sex.
Right?
You cannot discriminate on the basis of sex in that decision.
Now, as Justice Alito points out in his dissent, it doesn't make any logical sense what Gorsuch and the majority do here.
So Gorsuch says, sexual harassment is conceptually distinct from sex discrimination, but it can fall within Title VII sweep.
Would the employers have us reverse those cases on the theory that Congress could have spoken to those problems more specifically?
Of course not.
As enacted, Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination because of sex.
However, they may manifest themselves or whatever other labels might attach to them.
So in other words, what he is saying is that sexual orientation is covered by the prohibition to discriminate on the basis of sex because you couldn't be homosexual without being a member of the same sex as the person to whom you are engaging in sex.
So in other words, if a woman has sex with a man and is not fired, but a man has sex with a man and is fired, it is not sexual orientation that is the question, but the sex of the man.
But as Justice Alito points out, that makes no sense because you could very easily have a policy that says a woman cannot have sex with a woman and a man cannot have sex with a man.
Again, by the way, this is not to make the case that people should not hire gay men or gay women.
This is me talking about whether you are forced by law to hire people, right?
Whether you are forced by law.
That is a different question as to what I would do in a business circumstance.
I'm sure there are people who are gay and lesbian who are working for my company right now.
I don't care.
And frankly, if somebody applied as a transgender person, I wouldn't care about that either.
Okay, the reality is that I'll hire anybody of any time so long as they can do the job.
I really don't care.
But that is not the question here.
The question is whether the federal government can compel businesses to violate freedom of association, to violate freedom of religious liberty, to violate freedom of speech.
And you watch, this decision, ironically enough, will then be used as a social media club with which to beat everyone who says things like men and women exist.
So a decision which basically says that anything that manifests manhood or womanhood is now violative of federal law if you fire somebody on that basis or discriminate on that basis, that will be used as a cause by social media within the next six months, watch, to say that if you say a man is a man and a woman is a woman, you are now discriminating on the basis of transgender identity, which, ironically enough, is rejected by the court here.
Because what the court is actually saying is that it is a discrimination against a man If you fire him on the basis of transgender identity.
So a man comes in, dressed as a woman, and you say to him, well, you're not a woman, so I'm firing you.
That is a discrimination based on sex, according to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Which overtly rejects, I mean, that implicitly and overtly rejects the idea that a man who comes in and says that he is a woman is actually a woman.
Because then it wouldn't be discrimination on the basis of sex.
It would be discrimination on the basis of something else.
So logically speaking, there are a lot of holes in this argument.
As Alito makes clear in his dissent, it is unclear what the ramifications of the Supreme Court decision today are going to be.
It really is not particularly clear.
What is clear is that if you're a religious person in the United States and you own a company, then this is a very big problem for you if you actually hope to Use any sort of religious values, traditional religious values in your hiring, right?
There was something called the Hobby Lobby case.
It held that a closely held corporation, like Hobby Lobby, could not provide for abortion care in its healthcare coverage, right?
So now, under this Supreme Court decision, could a closely held religious corporation say, listen, we don't employ gays and lesbians because we're a religious Christian family and we don't want to do that, or Could they say, we don't want to employ people who are transgender because it violates our perspective on what males and females are?
All of that is left up in the air by this decision.
Also left up in the air is what does discrimination constitute?
So as I say, I'll hire anybody at my company, but I will say on the air that a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
Let's say I say that just around the office.
Let's say I'm talking to some people around the office and I'm talking politics and I say a man is a man and a woman is a woman and a transgender person overhears that.
Have I now created a discriminatory work environment?
Utterly unclear from this decision.
Utterly unclear from this decision.
So the decision creates an enormous number of questions.
It is legally ridiculous.
Not only is it legally ridiculous, it does give the lie to the idea that conservatives can simply rely on the federal courts of the United States to protect them.
And this has been one of the great lies that conservatives have pushed for years.
All we need to do in Congress is give you tax cuts and judges, and then you should be happy with that.
Two of the judges who voted for this thing, two of the judges who voted for this very, very bad decision on a legal basis, two of those judges are Republicans.
Two of those were appointed by Republicans, Roberts and Gorsuch.
There are only four Democratic appointees who voted for this decision.
This thing went 6-3.
So once again, Republicans proving themselves incompetent at selecting Supreme Court judges.
I'm old enough to remember when Butt Gorsuch was the big excuse for, you have to back Trump because Butt Gorsuch.
Gorsuch was the opinion writer in this particular case.
By the way, worth noting, this is the same Supreme Court that has turned down multiple writs of certiorari.
Writs of cert are applications for a Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment.
So the Supreme Court will not decide.
Basically, the Supreme Court has established a federal right for you to own a gun in your home, but the Supreme Court has not decided whether you can carry, whether you can have a gun in your business, and they've rejected every case on that basis.
Second Amendment cases, they're rejecting right and left, but they certainly took up a case in which they basically established that If you fire somebody on the basis of your own religious conviction, and you're not an overtly religious organization, then you can be federally sued under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 without any additional legislation, even though it is clear to everyone, right, left, and center, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not cover this sort of activity.
It obviously did not.
Okay, like, this is perfectly clear.
Gorsuch admits as much.
He just expands it.
Okay, that's bad law, and it's once again proof that if you're relying on judges to save you from the elements of the left, good, Good luck.
Good luck.
It ain't gonna happen.
Okay, we're gonna get to the complete breakdown of law and order in the United States in just one moment.
First, let's talk about something brighter.
The possibility of investing in cool companies.
Imagine having a convenient tabletop device that gives complete lab-grade blood count results in minutes with nothing but a small prick and two drops of blood.
No more having to draw vials of blood only to wait days for critical test results.
This is the future of blood testing.
There's a company called Sight that has announced that it is here.
You could invest in Sight Diagnostics in the future of easier, faster blood testing at OurCrowd.com.
This is what OurCrowd.com does.
They spot awesome up-and-coming companies, and they allow you to invest really early in those companies.
OurCrowd's crowdsourced investing platform gives accredited investors access to early-stage funding rounds in some of the most promising companies around the world.
They help you invest before the companies go public, like they have with a company called Beyond Meat.
They've also invested in almost 200 companies to date.
Our crowd-backed companies have been bought by Nike, Oracle, Uber, Comcast, Intel, Snap, and more.
Getting it on the ground floor when you're an investor is a boon.
So you can check out those possibilities right now at Our Crowd.
It really is exciting stuff.
Learn more about investing in companies like Site Diagnostics at info.ourcrowd.com slash Shapiro.
Again, that's info.ourcrowd.com slash Shapiro.
That's info.rcrowd.com.
dot com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so meanwhile, and we are still looking at the incredible extension of civil rights law in an area where it had never been presumed to be extended before by the Supreme Court.
We'll look more at the sort of ramifications of that as we continue because I've been wading through 170 pages of legal opinion.
We'll get to that in a moment.
But first, let's talk about what's been going on in Atlanta.
So the continued attack on the police, it's ongoing and it's going to have real ramifications.
So, over the weekend, there was a flare-up in Atlanta.
The flare-up in Atlanta was essentially a man who was apparently asleep at a drive-thru at Wendy's because he was drunk behind the wheel.
The police show up.
And they start questioning him.
The questioning goes for 25 minutes.
They're very polite.
He's fairly polite to them.
Then, when they go to arrest him, he starts to resist arrest.
Not only does he resist arrest, he knocks down two of the police officers, he grabs one of their tasers, and then, as he's running away from the officers, he turns around and points the officer's taser at the officer and attempts to fire it at the officer, at which point the officer shoots him dead.
So we have the actual footage of this.
It is disturbing.
So if you're disturbed by this sort of footage, then you should probably skip the next minute and a half or so.
Here is what the actual situation was, because this is being used as yet another case in point of evil, brutal white police taking down an innocent black man.
And that is not what this case is.
Not all cases are created equivalent.
This is not like the case of George Floyd.
It is not.
This is not like the case of Ahmaud Arbery.
Okay, this is a case in which a person stole a weapon off a cop and pointed the weapon at the cop, and then he was shot dead.
So here is what the... This resulted, by the way, in the burning down of the Wendy's, which makes no sense.
It's not the Wendy's fault.
By the way, it was a white chick, apparently, who burned down the Wendy's.
We'll get to that in a second, but here was the actual footage.
And it's important to analyze these situations because the headlines that came from the media were just a lie, like an overt lie.
There were headlines from the media that said things like, unarmed black man shot by police.
He was not unarmed.
He was literally holding the taser and pointing it at the officer at the time.
Okay, here is what the footage looked like, and I'll narrate it for people who can't actually see it.
I wasn't here, so can you tell me what happened before we got here?
Okay, so they're giving him the walking test.
He obviously can't walk in a straight line.
He's having trouble.
This guy's really very drunk.
I have my daughters there right now.
My daughter's birthday was yesterday.
Hello, Mr. Brooks.
Will you take a preliminary breath test for me?
It's a yes or no.
I don't want to refuse anything.
It's yes or no.
It's completely up to you.
Yes, I will.
Okay.
Just wait here while I grab it.
What kind of drinks did you have?
I'm not sure.
It's something she ordered.
She said top shelf or whatever.
Top shelf what?
I'm not sure.
It was, like I said- So they're talking, obviously, about the kind of drinks that he's had.
This is all very polite, right?
I mean, if the police officers are out to kill the guy, this is not how that encounter starts, typically.
If it's white, racist police officers looking to kill black men, you usually don't have 25- Okay, now here's where it gets ugly.
So they go to handcuff the guy.
The body cam footage is here.
And then, next, you cut to footage from somebody else.
Now the guy's resisting arrest.
He takes these guys, the police officers, to ground.
He reaches out.
He steals the taser from one of the police officers.
And they're shouting, he's got my taser, he's got my taser, right?
One of the officers draws his taser to try and tase him, but it apparently fails.
The guy grabs the taser from him, escapes the police officers, and takes off down the street.
You'll see him throw the police officer in one second, and finally kind of bust free of them and run.
Okay, he tries to tase him there, right?
He tries to, he points it at the officer there, then he's running away.
He turns around, And he fires the taser at the police officer, at which point the police officer shoots him.
I asked several police officers last night because I want to make sure that I was getting this right.
Because I don't know police procedure.
I read the law in the city of Atlanta on use of deadly force, and this falls squarely within the law on the use of deadly force.
If someone removes a weapon from a police officer and fires it at the police officer, If it is a taser.
So people were saying idiotic things.
They were suggesting that, well, you know, a taser isn't a deadly weapon, so you can't shoot the guy if you use it.
Well, no.
The idea is that he's already demonstrated his willingness to take a weapon off an officer.
If he fires the taser at the officer and takes the officer down, what is to prevent him from then going over to the officer, withdrawing the officer's gun, and shooting him?
The officer does not have to wait around to be killed.
That is not the way this works.
The officer does not have to wait around to be seriously injured by a suspect who is resisting arrest.
So the Atlanta mayor immediately fired this officer.
Immediately.
Okay, and said that while this was, just because this was justified by law, doesn't mean it was justified in action.
Okay, in other words, yes, the law covers this sort of activity by police officers, because, again, I talked to multiple police officers, not a single one of these police officers thought this was a bad shoot, because it isn't a bad shoot.
If you knock down police officers, and you steal a weapon off a police officer, and then you fire a weapon at a police officer, even if it is a taser, they are not obligated to shoot to wound, because that's not a thing, they have to stop you.
You're running away with a police officer's taser right now, and he, again, by the way, They don't shoot him before he turns around and attempts to shoot them with the taser.
He turns around, he fires the taser.
You can see the taser light up as he attempts to fire it at them.
In the footage.
Here's the Atlanta mayor firing the guy.
And now the DA is considering prosecuting the guy.
Prosecuting the cop.
So here's the Atlanta mayor.
While there may be debate as to whether this was an appropriate use of deadly force, I firmly believe that there is a clear distinction between what you can do and what you should do.
I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force and have called for the immediate termination of the officer.
Okay, so there's a distinction between what you can do and what you should do.
I'd like to see her on the streets actually policing.
Okay, if you're a police officer, what are you supposed to do?
Sit around until somebody kills you?
Until someone gravely injures you?
I guess that is the idea here from so many people.
So the attorney for the family here, he says, well, you know, a tailor isn't a deadly weapon.
A taser isn't a deadly weapon.
Again, if a person approaches you with a baseball bat, it is quite possible that the first blow of the baseball bat is not going to kill you.
But if they approach you with a weapon, You're justified in shooting him.
By the way, if they charge you and you don't have, and the person does not have a weapon, if they charge you with intent to do you bodily harm, you don't have to wait there until they actually physically assault you.
That is not a thing.
It's certainly not a thing when they're firing a taser at you.
But here was the lawyer for the man who was killed in Atlanta, whose name was Brooks.
The case law in Georgia, a taser's not a deadly weapon.
So they can't say it's not like he was running off with a gun.
It's not a deadly weapon.
I lose cases against officers who use it on my clients because it's not a deadly weapon.
And I'm saying that, you know, they shouldn't have done it.
But you just can't have it both ways in this.
If it's not a deadly weapon, his life was not in immediate harm when he fired that shot.
Well, I don't know.
I mean, It's immediate harm.
Like, his life is not in immediate harm.
The guy turned around and fired a taser at him.
You don't get to do that to police officers without fear of being shot.
Right?
We hear a lot about the talk, which a lot of parents give their kids, particularly in the black community apparently.
This is a talk that happens a lot where you tell your kids, you know, be careful around police because they might shoot you.
Well, part of that talk is respect the orders of the officer.
I'm pretty sure that this does not fall under the behavior that is usually covered by that talk.
Okay, again, every police officer that I have talked to says this is a good shoot.
Every single one.
I talked to multiple of them yesterday.
So if you don't like this sort of thing, and you don't have to like it, but if you don't acknowledge that this sort of thing is covered by normal police officer behavior, then you really shouldn't be in charge of police policy.
You really should not.
This did not call for lethal force.
This did not call for lethal force.
And I don't know what's in the culture that would make this guy do that.
It's got to be the culture.
It's got to be the system.
You got an African American woman mayor.
You got a woman police chief.
So the sensitivities that we look for in people are there, but it's not ingrained in the institution.
It's the institution, you see.
It's the institution.
Again, 25 minutes back and forth with the guy before he resists arrest and steals a weapon off a police officer and tries to shoot him with a taser.
So now the DA, I mean, this is how politicized this has gotten.
The Fulton District Attorney, Paul Howard, said his office will decide this week if Garrett Rolfe, the guy who was fired following the shooting, will be charged in the case.
He said that could meet a murder charge.
Howard said, quote, Brooks did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone.
Any kind of threat to anyone?
He literally downed two police officers, right?
He took them to the ground.
You can see it in the tape.
And then he fires a taser at one of them.
He attempts to fire it at him again, right?
Twice.
He says, the fact that it would escalate to his death seems unreasonable.
If that shot was fired for some reason other than to save that officer's life or prevent injury to him or others.
Prevent injury to him or others is the operative language.
If someone fires a taser at me, I'm pretty much going to assume they intend injury to me or others.
The shooting is not justified under the law, says this DA.
I mean, this is insanity.
Like, truthfully, to prosecute a cop on these charges is full-scale insanity.
It's crazy.
But this is the world that we are creating for police officers, and it's gonna have predictable results, which is police officers are gonna quit.
And you're gonna see what a world without police look like.
Really, who'd wanna serve under these circumstances?
There are actual ramifications to the police are all racist and all evil.
It is one thing to say that you wanna curb police brutality.
It is another thing to say that in circumstances that justify a shooting, legally speaking, That you were gonna go after the police anyway.
Because now you've just made policing basically undoable.
And that's what many police officers recognize.
By the way, I talked to a lot of cops about this shooting yesterday, and nearly all of them also said, at least the ones in major city, I'm looking for a way to get out of the police force.
Because this is not a way that I can survive.
I can't keep my family.
Under these circumstances, I'm supposed to take a brick off the head rather than do anything about it?
I can't do that.
I'll get a security job somewhere.
We'll talk more about this in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that if you are web browsing without a VPN to protect your information, that is a risky thing to do.
I know most of you are probably thinking, why don't you just use incognito mode?
Well, incognito mode does not hide your activity.
It doesn't matter what mode you use or how many times you clear your browsing history, your ISP can still see every single website you've ever visited, which is why even when I'm at home, I never go online without using ExpressVPN.
It doesn't matter if you get your internet from Verizon or Comcast or anywhere else.
ISPs in the U.S.
can legally sell your information to ad companies, which is sort of the opposite of what you want to happen when you are online, right?
You want that information to be yours and yours alone.
ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes your internet connection through their secure servers so your ISP can't see the sites you visit.
ExpressVPN also keeps all of your information secure by encrypting 100% of your data with the most powerful encryption available.
Most of the time, I don't even realize I have ExpressVPN running.
It runs seamlessly in the background of my computer.
One click of the button and now it's running.
Protect your online activity today with the VPN rated number one by CNET and WIRED.
You can visit my exclusive link expressvpn.com.
You can get an extra three months for free on a one-year package.
Also prevents people from You know, hacking you and stealing your information.
Check them out at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Ben.
To learn more, expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Okay, so, meanwhile, speaking of areas that have gone completely copless.
Exciting news from the Republic of Chaz.
It's the Republic of Chaz, man.
They've actually changed their name now.
They took my advice.
They said, they decided the Republic of Chaz is a bad name.
So now they've actually gone literal.
The Republic of Chop.
The Capitol Hill organized protest.
That is what they are calling themselves.
Chop.
So it's good.
When they bring the guillotines out, at least they'll have advanced notice to everybody.
According to KOMO News, without a leader and with more voices chiming in, some of the protesters that have been pushing for police reform and advocating for Black Lives Matter at the now-abandoned East Precinct say it's a move to get the movement back on track.
They named Chavs.
We didn't actually come up with that, said a protester.
We're not sure if it was detractors or people trying to push a false narrative.
They came in with that name.
They came in with the signs.
Oh, it was the right.
It was probably us.
It was probably people on the right who called it CHAZ, not the people who called it the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
Okay, so CHAZ has turned into a garbage heap, naturally.
We have footage of what this area of Seattle looks like.
It is graffiti-strewn hellhole.
I mean, it looks really, really bad.
They've graffitied every building.
They've graffitied every window.
They've broken some of the windows as well.
It's really nice looking, right?
I mean, this looks good.
It says, justice for all looters.
People have spray painted on windows.
There are giant bags of trash everywhere.
All cops are bad.
That's ACAB.
If you're seeing ACAB, that means all cops are bad, which is a hell of a take.
Abolish Seattle PD.
Police are domestic terrorists.
They've graffitied everything.
They're anarchist symbols.
And then, of course, the odd genitalia, which is very important.
You have to make sure that you have a graffiti on something in order for you to really make a difference in American life.
So things are also not going well in terms of the actual governance.
The Chas protesters actually had to call the fire department after a dumpster fire was started just outside the boundary of Chas.
According to Chas, protesters in Seattle have been camped out this week in an enclave called Chas, and apparently a fire was started just outside Chas.
And so they called the fire department about the dumpster fire, which again is a very, very good indicator of exactly what Chas is.
They've been trying to grow their own crop.
They're not particularly autonomous.
They've been trying to grow their own crop.
I will say they could use a few Republicans in there with their gardening.
They're gardening on cement.
They took some topsoil, they put it on top of cardboard, and now they're trying to garden on the topsoil, which is placed on top of cardboard.
Which...
Look, looks great.
Looks great, guys.
I'm sure that your bumper crop will be coming up anytime.
Also, freedom is flourishing over in Chaz.
Certain advocates who are not black, actually, are trying to push all of the white people in Chaz to give $10 to their black neighbors on the basis of race.
So racial discrimination is like first step in Chaz.
This is exciting stuff.
I want you to find by the end, by the time you leave, This autonomous zone, I want you to give $10 to one African American person from this autonomous zone.
And if you find that's difficult, if you find it's hard for you to give $10 to people of color, to black people especially, you have to think really critically about in the future, are you going to actually give up power and land and capital when you have it?
Things are going great over in Chaz, so we have full-on racial redistribution happening.
Also, if you're black and you're carrying an American flag, that's bad.
So we're allowed to have the cops of Chaz go after it.
The American flag is banned in Chaz, that's exciting stuff.
our friend Andy Ngo who reports from these sorts of situations there's a black guy who's walking through Chaz carrying an American flag and people try to steal the flag from him which of course things are going great over there they're shouting at him they're chasing him down the street it's It's good times, it's good times.
So, excellent, excellent news.
Also, the CHAZ protesters were threatening street preachers.
So things are going great there.
They have their own police force that basically is just an armed band that goes around and threatens people, which is exciting stuff.
They have a border.
They have not been enforcing the law.
They've tripled the 9-1-1 time, according to the Seattle PD, if somebody's got a problem inside CHAZ.
So things are going beautifully inside CHAZ.
Meanwhile, over in Portland, protesters shut down the street again because Portland has been again one of these cities that has been left to the tender mercies of Antifa.
The point in all this is that when you chase away the cops and when you tell them you can't do their jobs, things get worse.
They do not get better.
And they get worse particularly in high crime communities.
I'm going to bring you the evidence of that in just one second, because as we hear defund the police from all the morons, as we hear get rid of the police, abolish the police from all the idiots, recognize that has real world ramifications for an enormous number of actual human beings.
We're going to get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you make your business better.
I'm talking about NetSuite by Oracle.
It's the world's number one cloud business system.
Listen, you need to be on top of your data, particularly these days in a volatile business climate.
Finance, HR, inventory, e-commerce, everything you need all in one place to save time, money, headaches.
Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite will give you visibility and control so you can manage every penny with precision.
Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence.
NetSuite has surveyed hundreds of business leaders, assembled a playbook of the top strategies they are using as America reopens for business.
Listen, as you are running your business, you're going to need to know everything you can about your business because any inefficiency is going to cost you on the bottom line, and it could cost your business.
This is why you must be on top of your business.
You have to have all your business systems integrated, and this is why you need NetSuite by Oracle.
Receive your free guide, seven actions businesses need to take now, and schedule your free products tour.
Okay, so all of this has an actual impact.
Shapiro.
Again, get your free guide.
Schedule your free product tour right now at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
That is N-E-T-S-U-I-T-E dot com slash Shapiro. Netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now. Netsuite.com slash Shapiro and get your free guide.
Seven actions businesses need to take now and schedule your free product tour at netsuite.com slash Shapiro right now.
Okay, so all of this has an actual impact.
So there's this bizarre idea, like the wife of Bill de Blasio, whose name escapes me for the moment, who may run for mayor herself, apparently, which would just be wonderful because he's been so great.
She said that she looks forward to a New York without police that would actually be some sort of paradise.
She suggested it would be Nirvana.
It would be Nirvana without police.
Well, what happens to towns without police?
Well, Roland Fryer and researchers at Harvard University have just come out with a study.
And here's what they found.
They found that after federal investigations against police officers in areas with a disputed attack, so for example, Ferguson, What they saw is that after federal investigations and heavy media exposure, you know what cops do?
They stop policing.
Because they recognize that they are now on the chopping block.
So this is not an excuse for police brutality, but it is to recognize that when you sick the entire media establishment and law enforcement establishment on itself, and when instead of being deliberate in how you attempt to change policy, you with a blunderbuss basically fire at police officers and say that all police are racist, ACAB, all police are bad, When you do that, from a public policy level, what you end up doing is telling the police not to do the policing, and then what happens?
Crime rises dramatically.
So according to this new study from Roland Fryer, for investigations that were preceded by a viral incident of deadly force, Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Riverside, and Ferguson, there's a marked increase in both homicide and total crime.
The cumulative amount of crime that we estimate due to pattern or practice investigations in the two years after the announcement for this sample is 21.10 per 100,000 for homicides and 1,191.77 per 100,000 for felony total crime.
Put plainly, the causal effects of the investigations in these five cities, triggered mainly by the deaths of Freddie Gray, Laquan McDonald, Timothy Thomas, Taisha Miller, and Michael Brown at the hands of police has resulted in 893 more homicides than would have been expected with no investigation and more than 33,472 additional felony crimes relative to synthetic control cities.
So in other words, 900 more people died because you decided that you were going to go after police departments in all of these areas.
By the way, predominantly minority police departments in the case of Baltimore.
To get a sense of how large this number is, again, this is a study from Roland Fryer and other researchers at Harvard.
The average number of fatal shootings of African Americans by police officers in Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Riverside, and St.
Louis per year is 12.
Thus, even if investigations cured these cities of all future civilian casualties at the hands of police, it would take approximately 75 years to break even.
Our estimates suggest that investigating police departments after viral incidents of police violence is responsible for approximately 450 excess homicides per year.
This is two times the loss of life in the line of duty for U.S.
military in a year, 12.6 times the annual loss of life due to school shootings, and three times the loss of life due to lynchings between 1882 and 1901, the most gruesome years.
So, in other words, when you crack down on the police and you tell them not to do their jobs, there's a predictable result.
And the predictable result is a lot more crime.
A lot more crime.
But we're going to pretend that that doesn't exist because it's more important to label the police who are saving black lives as we speak as racist.
Very, very important stuff.
This is how you end up with a column by Mariam Kaba, organizer against criminalization in the New York Times.
Remember that time when the New York Times said it wasn't going to run op-eds that were poorly thought out in the wake of Tom Cotton?
Op-eds that were sneering in tone?
Wait till you hear this one.
We'll get to it in just one second.
Let's talk about a great gift for Father's Day.
So as you know, I'm a watch guy.
I really love watches and I like giving watches to my friends and family.
Birthdays and anniversaries and Father's Day is a great opportunity to give your dad a great watch.
But you don't want to break the bank.
You don't want to spend thousands of dollars on a watch.
Instead, go check out Vincero watches.
These are watches I love to wear and I'm a luxury watch guy.
My listeners already know that Vincero creates the most incredible-looking watches at an amazing price point.
These are seriously stunning watches, well under $200.
There's no better gift for a dad, a husband, grandfather, you name it, than giving them the gift of time with a Vincero watch.
During this time, they continue to do right by their buyers.
They know how important it is to have a great watch for an affordable price.
Go check them out at vincerowatches.com slash Shapiro.
That's V-I-N-C-E-R-O watches dot com slash Shapiro.
They offer free shipping, 30-day returns, guarantee your watch for two years, They have over 21,000 five-star reviews because they're great.
It's a watch that's stylish, bold, built to last.
They have a bunch of different options.
My wife wears Vincero every day and you can engrave the back of the watch.
So I actually have one that's engraved with facts.
Don't care about your feelings.
Take advantage of their sale.
Get up to 20% off everything.
On their website.
None of the new items are off limits.
They have brand new watch collections.
You need to see for yourself online right now.
Vincerowatches.com slash Shapiro.
When you purchase, the discount is automatically applied at checkout for 20% off.
Go check them out.
Vincerowatches.com slash Shapiro for 20% off.
Okay, we're going to get to the call to abolish the police, and then we will get to the insane hypocrisy of Democrats when it comes to COVID lockdowns, because it is just growing day on day.
You may have noticed this year is totally insane.
It's like all the storylines decided to converge this year.
The writers just, they opened up all of the old files and just dumped out all the unused storylines in 2020.
Well, if you want actual real media coverage of what exactly is going on, you need a Reader's Pass today from DailyWire.com.
You'll get access to exclusive op-eds from us, your podcast hosts, as well as guest writers and in-depth analysis from our DailyWire reporters on top of regular breaking news.
This membership tier is already a bargain at $3 a month, but if you join today, you get your first month for $0.99.
You also get access to our mobile app and receive push notifications for breaking news and special content, as well as joining the community of DailyWare members who are actively commenting and discussing our content with each other.
That is mobile ad-free access to all of the DailyWire news, exclusive op-eds, and all of our podcasts on our mobile app, all for the low price of $1.
And best of all, your bucks are getting you the news you need with no left to spin.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join today.
Now would be a great time to pre-order my new book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
We're watching it happen in real time as all of the ideas that used to unify us, ideas about liberty, ideas about equality before the law, all these are thrown out in favor of identity politics.
My book talks about the destruction of America's common philosophy, history, and culture, and how to stop it.
Really, it's a counter-argument to the 1619 Project.
It's a counter-argument to the identity politics of the left and the socialist politics of Bernie Sanders.
I think it's a really important book, and I think you'll really get a lot from it.
Go check it out today.
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
You can pre-order at dailywire.com slash ben.
Again, that's dailywire.com slash ben to get.
My brand new book comes out July 21st.
You can pre-order it now, dailywire.com slash ben.
man.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So you remember that time that a bunch of people on the left said defund the police?
And then everyone was like, we don't mean defund the police.
We just mean like, move some of the money to mental health and move it to educational programs and midnight basketball.
Well, now they're just like, no, no, no.
You know what we actually meant?
Abolish the police.
Miriam Kaba, organizer against criminalization, has a piece in the New York Times titled, yes, we mean literally abolish the police because reform won't happen.
By the way, this is not a rare perspective.
Ilhan Omar has said the same thing.
Ilhan Omar, the congresswoman from Minnesota, she said it's time to abolish the police department because you cannot reform a rotten department.
Here was Congresswoman Omar.
A new way forward can't be put in place if we have a department that is having a crisis of credibility, if we have a department that's led by a chief who's suited for racism, if we have a department that hasn't solved homicide.
Half of the homicides in Minneapolis Police Department go unsolved.
There have been cases where they've destroyed rape kits.
And so you can't really reform Okay, so that's exciting stuff.
We can rebuild the police department.
But how the hell are you going to rebuild the police department while you're telling everybody that if they defend themselves, you're going to prosecute them?
Which is essentially what major police departments around the United States are now telling people.
What they actually want to do is abolish it.
So Miriam Kaba, she writes, Congressional Democrats want to make it easier to identify and prosecute police misconduct.
Joe Biden wants to give police departments $300 million.
But efforts to solve police violence through liberal reforms like these have failed for nearly a century.
Enough.
We can't reform the police.
The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.
By the way, she's right about that.
The way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and police.
There are two ways to go about that.
One is to reduce the police, which results in an increase in crime.
The other is to increase the police and reduce the crime rate.
Because it turns out you don't have as many encounters with the cops when you're not actually committing a crime.
The cops are there to police crime.
They're not there to just...
Screw with you because of your race, contrary to popular perception.
According to this idiot person, there is not a single era in U.S.
history in which the police were not a force of violence against black people.
Policing in the South emerged from the slave patrols in the 1700s and 1800s that caught and returned runaway slaves.
In the North, the first few municipal police departments in the mid-1800s helped quash labor strikes and riots against the rich.
Everywhere, they've suppressed marginalized populations to protect the status quo.
Well, I mean, first of all, just because Police departments did very bad things in, you know, 1700.
Does not mean that they are doing very bad things in 2020, like saving black lives.
That's not a bad thing.
And they are doing it every single day in black communities all over the United States, as that Harvard study that I just did to you suggests.
But the idea here from this woman is that anytime you see a police officer pressing his knee into a black man's neck until he dies, that is the logical result of policing in America.
Now, again, you're going to have to explain to me how that's the logical result of policing in America, when removing the police results in Literally an exponential increase in murder in the black community?
How is that?
So according to this woman, the idea is that police officers don't do what you think they do.
They spend most of their time responding to noise complaints, issuing parking and traffic citations, dealing with other non-criminal issues.
We've been taught to think they catch the bad guys, chase bank robbers, find serial killers.
But that's a myth.
The vast majority of police officers make one felony arrest a year.
If they make two, they're cop of the month.
Well, yes, because having police in communities actually means that you're stopping the crime before it occurs.
That is why you have to look at excess deaths.
It's not as though there's a certain number of murders and then the police ferret out the murderers and that's how you stop this thing.
If police are in a particular area, people don't murder people as much in that area because they are afraid of getting caught.
But apparently abolishing the police is going to be better for black Americans.
They say police officers break rules all the time.
And because police officers break rules all the time, that means that reform will be completely a failure.
My favorite part of this article is where this particular columnist suggests that you don't need police officers to investigate rape.
Quote, What about rape?
The current approach hasn't ended it.
In fact, most rapists never see the inside of a courtroom.
Two-thirds of people who experience sexual violence never report it to anyone.
Those who file police reports are often dissatisfied with the response.
Okay, you have still not suggested an actual way that you're going to police rape in the absence of the police.
You just said the police are not good enough at policing rape.
But saying the quiet part out loud, I mean, I'm all for it, honestly.
Like, you want to say the quiet part out loud, please, please continue.
Please go for it.
The policies that are being pushed by Democrats here are, in the end, it really is not a policy.
It is just a message.
And the message is that racism and bigotry are baked into our institutions.
That is the case that Mitch Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans, has suggested.
He says, racism is baked into our institutions, says Mitch Landrieu.
It is clear that white people in America don't have a real understanding or don't really believe that racism is institutionalized.
And when they hear it, they don't particularly understand what it is.
They think that we're calling every white person in America racist.
And it's the exact opposite.
It's biases that are baked into the institutions that, when applied equally and unequally, have a disparate impact on African-Americans.
African-Americans, on the other hand, understand clearly what institutional racism is.
Okay, so this is the narrative, right?
By the way, so does Mitch Lander understand institutional racism?
Because he's whiter, he's as white as the day is long.
Apparently he doesn't understand institutional racism.
So it's all about the narrative.
It's all about the narrative.
And here's the thing, the narrative has no limits.
Because once you suggest that Western civilization and its institutions are shot through with racism and evil, There is no end to the iconoclasm.
There's no end to the statues you want to tear down.
Over in Britain, thanks to these protests, they're trying to remove the statue of Winston Churchill from the public gaze.
The guy who saved Britain during World War II, they want to remove his statue.
All these losers who live in their mother's basement and who feel very righteous when they tweet things on Twitter and they spray paint statues and couldn't hold a candle to anything that Winston Churchill ever accomplished in his life now want to tear down a Winston Churchill statue to feel good about themselves.
Very important stuff.
We're really doing important things.
We're doing important things like taking down Gone with the Wind from HBO Max.
That was very important.
The HBO executive said they didn't have a shred, not a shred, of worry or regret about taking down Gone with the Wind.
Not at all.
Censorship, taking it down, not a shred of regret.
There are episodes of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
that have been removed from Netflix because they deleted episodes featuring characters in blackface because all the jokes must be removed.
It's very important.
You guys are doing important work.
You're ending racism.
It's really, really important.
Kyrie Irving, over in the NBA, is saying that he doesn't want the NBA players to play because of systematic racism.
In the NBA, in the NBA, which is, last I checked, what, 85% black?
There's systemic racism in the NBA?
According to Kyrie Irving, he said, I don't support going into Orlando.
I'm not with the systemic racism and the BS.
Something smells a little fishy.
Makes perfect sense.
Makes perfect sense.
So what you should do is you should deprive all of the NBA players of the ability to play this year and make any money to end systemic racism.
Makes perfect, perfect sense.
At this point, we have reached beyond anything remotely resembling an actual agenda, and we've gone straight to the virtue signaling.
My favorite virtue signaling piece of the week, by the way, was a piece from the Washington Monthly from Elizabeth Austin.
It begins like this.
I threw away my copy of Gone with the Wind.
It wasn't easy.
The book spent a couple of weeks sitting, recycling adjacent, before I came up with the will to toss it into the bin.
I held it in my hands one last time, and I kissed the title page where my father had inscribed, To Beth, Christmas 1975, and then I dropped it in the garbage.
So you're throwing away a book that your dad inscribed to you that is a classic of American literature with all of its flaws and representing a very flawed perspective, throwing away the book.
Obviously, book burning is the solution, guys.
The virtue signaling is very strong.
You want a virtue signal, you can also apparently, you know, just go to other people's houses and if they have a flag that has a thin blue line that pays homage to police, Going to somebody's house and removing the flags, that's always a very good look as well.
There's footage of that going around over this weekend.
Does any of this have to do with stopping police brutality or helping black Americans?
Obviously the answer is no.
The answer is obviously no.
So much of this is about white people feeling good about themselves.
Seriously.
Like an enormous amount of this.
By the way, including in Atlanta, where apparently that Wendy's that was set on fire was set on fire by a white girl.
And there was footage of, there was actually a black guy taking footage of her saying, this isn't us, it's this white girl over here who's burning down the Wendy's.
So much of this is driven by loser white radical leftists who have taken a legitimate cause against police brutality and then perverted it to their own end so they can feel good about themselves.
It's really well done stuff.
Really, really well done.
Okay, meanwhile, the COVID-19 hypocrisy continues apace.
It is unbelievable.
The sort of gaslighting that is going on right now is firmly, I mean, completely and completely insane.
Completely crazy.
Okay, so over the weekend, there was a black trans lives matter protest.
Because apparently it's not just black lives that are an existential threat in the United States, it's black trans lives specifically that are under existential threat.
And there were pictures from the footage from the BLM protest.
I mean, this thing was massive.
You're talking about like tens of thousands of people out in the streets, right next to each other, no masks or anything.
And here's how the news covered it.
So the media headlines, well, yeah, I mean, here's the footage.
You can see the footage.
It's crazy.
It's an enormous, enormous crowd of people.
You see a lot of social distancing there, do you?
I'm not seeing a ton of it.
Here's what's happening right now.
A lot of people are very bored, honestly.
Some people are legitimately interested in the cause, and a lot of people are very bored, and they get points for virtue signaling.
So, NBC News put out these headlines, less than an hour apart.
First headline, Rally for Black Trans Lives Draws Packed Crowd to Brooklyn Museum Plaza.
Less than an hour later, NBC News, President Trump plans to rally his supporters next Saturday for the first time since most of the country was shuttered by coronavirus.
But health experts are questioning that decision.
What?
So it's only bad when Trump does it, right?
When you're rallying for black trans lives or something, then apparently it's totally fine.
COVID is no threat anymore.
But if you're President Trump, then all of a sudden the media are on top of the threat, like full scale.
The worst in this case, of course, is Bill de Blasio.
So Bill de Blasio, apparently over the weekend he was marching because this is what he does.
He's a terrible mayor, but he was marching with people.
So that was exciting.
He said, So a lot of virtue signaling from that weird, gangly, goofy human being.
During today's East Harlem pray and protest, I felt the urgency and pain of this moment, but also confidence that change will come because of the spirit of this movement and because in this city we affirm that hashtag Black Lives Matter.
So a lot of virtue signaling from that weird, gangly, goofy human being.
Also, in other news, Bill de Blasio has announced that New York City COVID-19 contact tracers are not asking whether people who have COVID-19 have been to protests.
Not kidding.
This is according to thecity.nyc.
Over the last two weeks, Mayor Bill de Blasio and others have voiced concerns that packed police brutality protests across the city could trigger a new wave of COVID-19 infections.
Whether or not that's the case, however, remains unknown.
And de Blasio's team won't be directly trying to find out.
The hundreds of contact tracers working for the city under de Blasio's Test and Trace campaign have been instructed not to ask anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19 whether they recently attended a demonstration City Hall confirmed to the city.
No person will be asked proactively if they attended a protest, said Avery Cohen, a spokesperson for de Blasio.
Instead, they will try to help them recall contacts and individuals they may have exposed.
Like, do you live with anyone in your home?
Tracers then ask about close contacts, defined as being within 6 feet of another person for at least 10 minutes.
But they will not ask if you've been to a rally.
Because what they don't want is the headline, obviously, that the rallies that de Blasio and Cuomo and the rest of the left have been promoting are actually, like, dead center for what is promoting COVID-19 at this point.
And you're starting to see all these headlines about COVID-19 reemerging in major metropolitan areas.
Be like, oh my god, how is this happening?
Well, let's see.
Most of these states reopened, like, beginning of May.
It is now middle of June.
So, hmm, what could have happened, like, two weeks ago?
About two weeks ago, what could have happened?
Any ideas, guys?
But good news, Andrew Cuomo is on top of it.
He's threatening Manhattan and the Hamptons over lack of social distancing.
The Hamptons!
He tweeted out, we have received 25,000 complaints of reopening violations.
Bars or restaurants that violate the law can lose their liquor license.
People with open containers in the street can be fined.
Police and protesters not wearing masks can be fined.
Local government must enforce the law.
Weird because he didn't have anything to say about the protesters for like five seconds.
Also he says the violation complaints are predominantly from Manhattan and the Hamptons.
Lots of violations of social distancing, parties in the streets, restaurants and bars ignoring laws.
Enforce the law or there will be state action.
I noticed you have a few rallies like right here around like this part of your face right here.
There's some rallies like just right over here, like mainly all over this area.
There's a lot of rallies happening there, Andrew.
Muriel Bowser in DC doing the same thing.
She is saying that the increasing COVID that could hit Washington DC is due to reopening.
It's not due to the fact that there were tens of thousands of people marching through DC on her watch while she was painting Black Lives Matter on the street in giant yellow paint.
Here she was yesterday.
I think it's important, though, that we not just look to protest as a reason why we might be seeing spikes across the country.
Because before these protests, we were seeing spikes.
I think at least 14 states that reopened early, or that where we saw a lot of gatherings around Memorial Day, are reporting spikes.
So the reopening of America, in some cases early, has already generated increases in cases.
Guys, Memorial Day was Monday, May 25th.
Okay, it was Monday, May 25th.
The rally started on that Thursday, on that Wednesday and that Thursday.
So, it's gonna be real hard to separate that out, but I'm noticing a bit of a narrative here.
And then you wonder why people don't take our public health officials seriously or our public officials seriously.
All legitimacy has been lost here, and it should be lost because they're a joke.
de Blasio's a joke, Bowser's a joke, Cuomo's a joke.
It's all a sick joke.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas, executive producer Jeremy Boring, 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 Sajovic, 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.
Released criminals re-offend, statue-topplers can't tell you about the historical figures they're erasing, and celebrities have had enough.
▲
Export Selection