Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 16, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:04:55

The Supreme Court Widens The Great Divide| Ep. 1032

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We explore the Supreme Court's big decision rewriting the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to endanger religious liberty, police continue to come under fire for doing their jobs, and Bill de Blasio will let anyone go in public except for the Jews.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show. This show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Don't like the government spying on you?
	Well, visit expressvpn.com slash ven to stay anonymous.
	Okay, so I think that we should begin the show by discussing a very broad idea because it's going to have a lot of specific applications.
	There are two ways to think about how to unify a country and how to keep a country unified or any group of people unified.
	One way is to set very bare minimum rules and say, okay, well, if you fulfill these rules, then you can do whatever you want.
	And that's a really nice way of keeping people unified because basically, as long as you check a couple of boxes, you're good to go.
	Right?
	I'll take the Jewish community as an example.
	So I'll take my Orthodox community, get very parochial.
	So there are a couple of different ways to view unity inside Orthodoxy.
	So you could say, if you keep the Sabbath and you keep kosher, Then you should all be able to go over to each other's house, and you should all be able to go to the same shuls, and you should all be able to marry each other's kids, and all of that sort of stuff.
	Because as long as you're keeping the bare minimum of rules, you're all part of the same community.
	Well, in a body politic, you can have the same thing, right?
	You could have a view of the federal government that says, all the federal government is here to do are very basic things.
	Protect life, liberty, and property.
	Fundamental rights.
	That's it.
	The federal government is here to protect you, basically, from the government.
	It's here to protect you from your fellow citizen doing something actively to harm you.
	And it is here to protect you from your state government doing something actively to harm you.
	But it is not here to cram down a bunch of rules on you.
	Basically, so long as you fulfill these basic rules, the federal government isn't going to mess with you.
	Right.
	That is way one of achieving unity.
	Then there is way two of achieving unity.
	And to go back to my orthodox community, there are a lot of communities like this.
	And that is there are a lot of onerous rules.
	Right.
	And you have to keep every single aspect of them.
	And there's a lot of signaling as to whether you're part of the in group or whether you're part of the out group.
	There are a lot of kind of subsets of the orthodox community where you have to wear a certain type of hat.
	You wear a black hat or you wear a strimal.
	Or you keep kosher in a certain way, right?
	You keep a particular brand of kosher meat, but not a different type of brand of kosher meat.
	You go to a specific type of synagogue, or you send your kids to a specific type of school.
	And if you don't send your kids to that type of school, then your kids can't marry your friend's kids, right?
	That is a way of achieving a very discreet unity within a subset of people.
	But it is very hard to broaden that out.
	And the reason it's hard to broaden that out is because most people aren't going to keep those rules.
	So take that back to the level of American government, right?
	American government could create unity by having a very, very heavy set of onerous rules that we all have to keep.
	And the culture could have a set of onerous rules that we all have to keep.
	And in order for you to be part of the in-group, part of the unified body of the United States, instead of agreeing on a few broad principles and then you're allowed to do whatever you want, instead of that, It is, you must agree to every single checklist item on this list, and you must be hemmed in by this huge thicket of rules.
	And if you do all of those things, then you can be part of the country.
	If you do all of those things, then you can be part of the in-group, as opposed to the out-group, the people who won't keep any of those rules.
	The founders saw the better vision for unity of a country in the first set of rules.
	And the reason that they felt that way is because they felt like, okay, you can actually have sort of the best of both worlds.
	You could have discrete communities inside the United States that are locally governed, right?
	This is the idea of subsidiarity, the idea of federalism.
	We're going to have local communities where the local community has a lot more homogeneity, a lot more agreement on what exactly the policies should be, right?
	So, for example, you're going to set up a local public school instead of having the federal government set up your public school for you 3,000 miles away.
	Instead, you and your friends get together and you decide how much you wish to be taxed and which teachers you decide to hire and how your kids ought to be taught.
	And that's really not the business of the federal government.
	And then there's the state government, and that has a little bit less homogeneity, and that means that it has less power to deal with you.
	And then you get to the federal government, and it has very little power to deal with you unless you are violating a specific subset of rules, right?
	And those subsets of rules would be you're violating somebody else's negative rights.
	So to get a little more specific about the philosophy of the federal government versus the state governments or local government in the U.S.
	Constitution, the founders believed in something called negative liberty.
	Negative liberty is what philosophers have termed the idea that you are protected from things.
	You are not given the right to things.
	You are protected from people violating your rights.
	So negative liberty would be that you have a right to your property.
	Why?
	Because nobody has the right to invade your property and take it.
	You have a right to your life because nobody has a right to invade your life and take it.
	Life, liberty, and property, these were the propositions that the federal government was set up to protect.
	And if any of those things are infringed upon by anybody else, then the federal government has the ability to step in, if we're talking in broad philosophical terms.
	But the federal government does not have the right to invade any of your rights to life, liberty, or property on behalf of some sort of greater good.
	The federal government doesn't really have the right to suggest that you ought to use your property in a particular way that the federal government kind of likes.
	The federal government does not get to set a set of cultural standards upon you In order to achieve so-called positive rights.
	So an example of a positive right, for purposes of the conversation we're about to have, would be a positive right is you have a right to employment.
	You don't have a right to employment in negative rights.
	Negative rights, I have the right to handle my business how I want.
	I can hire who I want, I can fire who I want.
	A positive right would be you have a right to be employed by me.
	And I don't have the ability to discriminate against you.
	Now that sounds great in theory, but the problem is that if you're running a business or you're running a property or any of that stuff, Right?
	Your stuff is your stuff.
	Now, I may not like how you use your stuff.
	In fact, I think there are lots of people who run their businesses poorly and make bad decisions morally.
	But one of the things you have to acknowledge about other people's rights is that they may use those rights in ways you don't like.
	And you may say, well, unity would be better achieved if we had a rule that you're not allowed to use your rights that way.
	The problem is once you give the government the power to invade people's rights on behalf of the so-called greater good, more and more often the federal government, and this has been true in the United States broadly speaking, more and more the federal government is going to restrict what everyone can do with their rights in favor of a quote-unquote broader good that is more and more a bare majority proposition.
	So normally, in terms of the federal government, you have to have widespread acceptance of a proposition in order for federal legislation to pass.
	This is why the Founding Fathers set up, as Federalist 51 points out, probably written by James Madison, maybe Alexander Hamilton, they say that one of the goals of the government is to restrict itself.
	You set up checks and balances so that human beings can't seize ultimate power and then 51% can cram down their perspective on 49%.
	This is why gridlock is built into the system.
	But more and more these days, we don't like the gridlock.
	And so instead, what we look for is an ability to take our 50% plus one person and cram down on the other 49.99999% of society exactly what we want.
	And that actually creates division.
	It doesn't create unity.
	It creates division over time.
	Because again, it's easier to unify people by saying you get to do what you want as long as you do these bare minimum of things.
	Then it is to say everybody has to keep this onerous checklist of things that we want them to do.
	That doesn't create unity, it creates division.
	Because sooner or later, you're going to run up on something that people just are going to refuse to do.
	You're going to run up on something where people say, okay, you've now infringed on one of my fundamental negative liberties.
	You've infringed on my negative right.
	So my right to practice my religion means you do not have a right to invade my religious practice.
	That's what that means.
	Okay, but if you say that now I get to come into your religious school and I get to tell you that every person you hire at your religious school Has to retain their hiring, no matter how often they violate the precepts of your religious school, now you've run up against my negative liberty.
	And so you haven't created unity, you've actually created disunity.
	Because before, you know, you may not like how I run my school, but you didn't have the right to invade it.
	And if you want to set up a separate school, you are totally fine to do that.
	That's called liberty.
	You don't have to like how I use my rights, and I don't have to like how you use your rights, and we can leave each other alone.
	But this seems to have been completely abandoned in American life now, or at least on the road to abandonment in American life.
	That's a very dangerous thing.
	People instead seem to embrace the idea that true unity lies in cramming down my point of view on everybody else.
	True unity lies in me grabbing the government gun and pointing it at everybody who disagrees with me.
	And maybe I'm doing it for the best of reasons.
	And maybe I'm doing it because I'm kind and generous.
	But maybe my definition of kindness and generosity and decency is actually not an objective definition of kindness, generosity, and decency.
	Maybe it's just my perspective.
	Which is why the Founding Fathers said, well, we don't want anybody to have that kind of power.
	This brings us to the Supreme Court decision-making apparatus itself.
	So we're going to get into the institution of the Supreme Court, why the Supreme Court should not have the kind of power in American life that it does, and then we'll get to the actual decision that they laid down yesterday on LGBT hiring and firing.
	And again, I'm coming from the perspective that I generally don't think that gays and lesbians should be fired for being gay or lesbian.
	I would hire a transgender person in my business.
	I would.
	I don't really care.
	It doesn't make a difference.
	You can do the job, you can do the job.
	But I also recognize that the government does not have the fundamental right to invade other people's property rights on behalf of a principle that I think about and how somebody should run their business.
	And I've been perfectly consistent on this, right?
	I think this is true for Jews.
	I think this is true on race.
	I think that freedom of association dictates that you should be able to do with your business what you want, even if you run your business in a fashion that I consider to be wrong and evil.
	Just as I think that free speech protects a lot of speech that I think is wrong and evil.
	A right means that people have a right to abuse that right.
	They do.
	They have a right to use the right in ways that I don't like, so long as they are not infringing on anybody else's rights, infringing on somebody else's liberty, and you do not have a right to a job, no matter who you are.
	You don't have a right to my property, no matter who you are.
	And I don't have a right to your property, no matter who I am.
	Okay, that libertarian vision was a more true to the founding father's vision.
	We've abandoned that because it turns out that the American people can't live with the gridlock.
	It turns out that the American people, they're not comfortable with the idea that we need a broad consensus in America anymore to get things done.
	Instead, the idea is that we are going to have other bodies.
	The gridlock in Congress has led the executive branch and the judicial branch to basically seize power and then use their power to cram down 51% propositions on the other 49% of the population.
	And that's a dangerous thing.
	Because instead of creating unity, it actually creates disunity.
	And it runs the risk of actually creating a movement to break apart the country.
	It turns out that you know what you get when you cram down a set of onerous rules on people?
	Breakaways.
	People tend to leave.
	Right?
	That orthodox community that says you have to fill all these rules?
	Guess what happens?
	A lot of people leave those communities.
	A lot of people leave.
	A lot of people stay, but a lot of people leave.
	And that's what we're talking about here.
	Okay, we're gonna get to more of this in just one second with an eye toward the Supreme Court decision-making process and toward the cultural war that we are now engaged in.
	First, let's talk about the fact that if you have a chance to save money on your cell phone bill, why in the world would you not take it?
	You should take advantage of it, like right away.
	I mean, you're just wasting money on your cell phone bill.
	How can you do this?
	You can switch to PureTalk USA.
	You can cut costs and free up cash on a monthly basis, starting with your wireless provider.
	Pure Talk covers 99% of Americans.
	The president and CEO of Pure Talk is a U.S.
	veteran who cares deeply about serving Americans by making wireless affordable.
	You can start your saving today.
	Like, why would you not save on your cell phone bill if you have the capacity to save on your cell phone bill?
	You're probably spending hundreds of bucks a month for data you're not even using.
	Instead, go get Pure Talk USA.
	You dial pound 250 and you say keyword Ben Shapiro for unlimited talk, unlimited text, and two gigs of data for just 20 bucks a month, which is going to save you a bundle.
	Plus, you get 50% off your first month.
	So it's actually 10 bucks for the first month.
	Stop paying too much to big wireless providers today.
	The coverage is just as good.
	Switch to Pure Talk today.
	Save 50% off your first month.
	I've been using Pure Talk myself.
	Dial pound 250.
	Say the keyword, Ben Shapiro.
	Pure Talk USA.
	Simply smarter wireless.
	Go check them out right now.
	Dial pound 250.
	Say keyword, Ben Shapiro.
	Okay, so the vision of American Liberty has come down to basically a group of people who think that we ought to use The force of the federal government, full weight and force of the federal government to cram down restrictions on other people's liberty in the name of the greater good.
	And there are people on the right who say this too, right?
	And there are people on the left and the right who have basically abandoned the original founding notions of liberty.
	That as long as I'm not invading your rights, I get to do what I want.
	Instead, they want to promote the greater good using the power of government.
	And then when it turns out that the legislature is chock full of people who disagree with each other and they can't get it done through those means, the Supreme Court seizes power.
	And the Supreme Court says, well, we're going to make up your minds for you.
	So perfect example of this is the big case from yesterday, which is this case on LGBT hiring and firing.
	This is the basic idea here.
	Everybody knows the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not cover sexual orientation or transgenderism.
	This is perfectly obvious to everyone.
	It is perfectly obvious to every single human being, including all of the justices who voted in favor of this proposition, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be revised to include all of these provisions.
	Justice Gorsuch acknowledges them much.
	He says it is perfectly obvious that nobody in 1964 was thinking about homosexuality when they talked about sex discrimination, and nobody was thinking about transgenderism when they were thinking about sex discrimination.
	He instead makes the argument that if you discriminate against someone based on their homosexual activity, then you're discriminating against them inherently on the basis of their sex.
	Because if a woman loves a man, you won't fire her.
	But if a man loves a man, you will fire her.
	That's discrimination on the basis of sex.
	I mean, you will fire him, right?
	That is logically fallacious.
	The reason it is logically fallacious is because That is not discrimination on the basis of sex.
	It's discrimination on the basis of activity.
	It's a discrimination on the basis of what the person is doing, not who the person is as a sex, right?
	It's discrimination based on sexual orientation, how you feel and what you're doing.
	It is not discrimination based purely on the fact that you are a man or on the fact that you are a woman.
	It is based on the fact that you are a man or a woman doing a thing.
	This is something that Justice Alito points out in his dissent.
	This is of course logically correct.
	It is also logically unsupportable that discrimination based on sex covers gender identity.
	Because gender identity, as the court acknowledges, is distinct from sex.
	So once you acknowledge that gender identity is distinct from sex in the leftist parlance, then it can't be discrimination based on sex anymore.
	So a man comes in.
	And he says, I am a woman.
	You have to make a decision.
	Is he a woman?
	Is he not a woman?
	If he is not a woman, you're not discriminating against him as a man, right?
	Because he's a woman, right?
	I mean, like, how does this work?
	It doesn't work, actually, right?
	Justice Gorsuch's opinion actually is self-contradictory, right?
	Because he actually mentions the plaintiff in one of these cases, who is a transgender female.
	And he calls this person she, right?
	A biological male.
	He calls him a she throughout.
	Okay, so if you call a man a she, Assuming this is a woman.
	You're not discriminating against the woman on the basis of her sex.
	You're discriminating against her on the basis of his sex.
	Right, which is not discrimination on the basis of him being male.
	It's discrimination against a male for calling himself a female, which is doing a thing.
	It's not discrimination on the basis of sex.
	There are all sorts of inherent contradictions and logical flaws in the opinion by Justice Gorsuch.
	Now listen, you may like the outcome, but guess what?
	Democrats were trying to push for that outcome anyway.
	Democrats fully acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act did not include this sort of activity.
	So put aside your preference for the outcome of the case.
	And recognize that the Democrats were trying to push the Equality Act until five minutes ago, which does exactly what this case does.
	They recognize the Civil Rights Act did not cover this sort of activity.
	They were pushing separate legislation.
	That's how it works in the United States, guys, is the way that it works is that you pass a piece of legislation.
	The legislation says what it says.
	Then, if you don't like the legislation, you pass another piece of legislation.
	You don't go to the Supreme Court and then have the Supreme Court dramatically rewrite the proposition and just say, OK, well, you know what?
	It turns out that what they meant in 1964, we don't like it, so we've decided to rewrite it in 2020 language.
	You don't get to do that.
	And it actually creates a lot of problems inside federal law.
	So, for example, Title VII, Now apparently Title VII discrimination.
	Now apparently covers transgenderism, right?
	What do you do with Title IX now?
	Title IX explicitly discriminates on the basis of sex.
	It says that there ought to be funding for women's sports leagues.
	What if a man wants to play in a women's sports league?
	Is he a woman?
	Apparently so.
	Apparently you can't have separate sports leagues.
	How about locker rooms?
	How about bathrooms?
	We have no idea.
	This decision leaves you no guidance.
	But what happened is that the judiciary stepped in and they decided they were going to set a top-down rule on all of America instead of just sort of allowing the marketplace of ideas to take place.
	And if you don't like how somebody's running their business, start another business.
	And if you don't like how somebody's acting, don't interact with them.
	That's called freedom.
	Instead, the federal government, the judiciary, has decided to step in.
	And that's actually dangerous, as we'll talk about in a second, with regard to religious liberty.
	Because now you're talking about treading on people's fundamental religious liberty rights in order to promote a quote-unquote greater good.
	And that carries some pretty inherent dangers.
	We're gonna get to that in just one moment.
	First, let's talk about the fact that at night, the worst thing you can do is pull up that cell phone and stare at your cell phone directly before you go to sleep.
	Why?
	Because the blue light is going to keep you up.
	Plus, if you're staring at screens all day, good shot you're getting headaches from it.
	Instead, what you really should be using is Felix Grey glasses.
	You don't want to strain your eyes.
	You don't want to keep yourself awake.
	Instead, you can use FelixGrey to filter out 90% of blue light in the most damaging range and eliminate 99% of glare through proprietary industry-leading lens technology only available with FelixGrey.
	9 in 10 FelixGrey customers report significant symptom relief.
	FelixGrey frames, they are hand-finished from durable, super lightweight Italian acetate.
	They're really nice.
	They're really durable as well.
	I've got kids.
	They're constantly beating the crap out of every product that I get.
	They've been all over my FelixGreys.
	They've not Scratched it.
	They've not dented it.
	Order online.
	The glasses ship directly to you with a hard case and lens cloth included.
	Try them for 30 days risk-free.
	They've got over 200,000 happy customers.
	These are a better pair of glasses.
	A better pair of blue light glasses.
	Go to FelixGreyGlasses.com for the absolute best quality blue light filtering glasses on the market.
	That's F-E-L-I-X-G-R-A-Y Glasses.com.
	Do what I did, start taking care of your eyes, feel better, work smarter.
	Shipping and return is totally free at FelixGreyGlasses.com.
	Okay, so the Supreme Court steps in and they declare just right off the bat that transgenderism and sexual orientation, despite the fact that they are obviously distinct, I mean, Gorsuch says this, despite the fact that they are distinct from sex, which is obviously true.
	You can be a man who is gay, you can be a man who is straight.
	The fact that you are a man is not indicative of whether you are gay or straight, right?
	That is a different question.
	To suggest that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which again, I oppose on a personal level.
	Like, we will hire gays and lesbians at my company.
	We'll hire transgender people at my company.
	I don't care.
	As long as you can do the job.
	That does not mean that this is covered by the Civil Rights Act.
	And there is an inherent danger in the Supreme Court simply declaring itself, as it always does, a super legislature, and then deciding what rules Americans should live by, especially when the rules are unclear.
	So that's particularly true when you come to religious liberty.
	So Justice Samuel Alito points this out.
	He says, briefs filed by a wide range of religious groups, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, express deep concern that the position now adopted by the court will trigger open conflict with faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions.
	They argue that religious organizations need employees who actually live the faith and that compelling a religious organization to employ individuals whose conduct flouts the tenets of the organization's faith forces the group to communicate an objectionable message, which is obviously true.
	If you're running a Catholic day school and you have a secular science teacher and the secular science teacher is Bob, and the next day he comes in and says, I'm Janine, that may conflict with your Catholic faith that you are attempting to promote to your kids.
	Also, it conflicts with objective reality, but put that aside.
	It may conflict with your faith that male and female, he created them, right?
	This is a religious school.
	This is why people are paying to go there.
	This problem, says Samuel Alito, is perhaps most acute when it comes to employment of teachers.
	A school's standards for its faculty communicate a particular way of life to its students, and a violation by the faculty of those precepts may undermine the school's moral teaching.
	Thus, if a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment.
	This is particularly true, by the way, even if you had a rule that said same-sex teachers, same-sex married teachers, just don't talk about it in the classroom.
	They could then sue and say, listen, I get to be who I am.
	It's a free country.
	I get to be who I am.
	You're not allowed to discriminate against me.
	That is sexual harassment.
	And then they can sue the school.
	Says Samuel Alito.
	At least some teachers and applicants for teaching positions may be blocked from recovering on such claims by the ministerial exemption.
	Exception recognized in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School versus EEOC from 2012.
	Two cases now pending before the court present the question whether teachers who provide religious instruction could be considered to be ministers.
	But what if you are a secular teacher at a religious institution?
	Or an administrator at a secular institution.
	How about healthcare?
	What if you're a Catholic hospital and you don't want to provide transgender surgeries because you believe that this is cruelty?
	And you believe, not just on a religious level, but you believe on an objective level that it is cruelty.
	Well then presumably, this law, this ruling could theoretically overrule it.
	Justice Gorsuch openly writes that doctrines protecting religious liberty, those are questions for future cases.
	So we have no idea.
	It's not that this case inherently changes the rules so radically.
	It's that this case provides the framework for changing the rules incredibly radically.
	If Democrats take control of Congress and press forward the Equality Act to get rid of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is the great protection here, that religious organizations can protect themselves from the predations of the federal government on social issues.
	If the Democrats take over and push forward their view of religion, which is that religion is but a cover for bigotry, right?
	This is something Cory Booker has said and Beto O'Rourke has said.
	And if you're a religious institution, you oppose same-sex marriage, it's not that you have a good faith objection to same-sex marriage because you believe in traditional marriage, it's that you're a bigot.
	And therefore, there should be no religious exemptions.
	We should remove your non-profit status.
	We should make sure that you can't actually teach kids this stuff.
	Religious liberty is endangered by decisions like this.
	Not to mention, it also creates significant problems for free speech.
	Let's say that you're a political organization.
	Let's say that you're Daily Wire.
	Okay, and let's say that you hire a transgender person, because as I've said, I don't care whether we hire a transgender person.
	You can do the job fine with me.
	But now let's say that I say on the show what I always say on the show, which is biological men are biological men, and biological women are biological women.
	And let's say that I say that in the offices.
	I'm talking to a group of people in our editorial meeting.
	I said it's the editorial viewpoint of our website that biology exists.
	Does that now constitute a discriminatory work environment under Title VII?
	Utterly unclear.
	Not clear at all.
	In other words, the federal government has stepped in, and on behalf of a good, seen by, I would say, maybe a majority of the population, but a bare majority of the population, in the case of transgenderism, maybe a minority of the population, in terms of people who actually believe that Transgender people are members of the sex to which they claim membership.
	On behalf of that, you're going to violate fundamental precepts of free speech and freedom of religion and freedom of association?
	There are serious ramifications to invading people's liberty, even if you agree with the invasion of liberty.
	Even if you agree with the particular invasion of liberty, there's a great danger to giving government this type of power.
	It is a real problem and a threat to religious liberty.
	And again, we have no idea the ramifications.
	Title VII could kill Title IX.
	As I mentioned, as soon as you say transgenderism is now protected under Title VII, what happens to separate men's and women's leagues?
	What happens to bathrooms?
	What happens to locker rooms?
	We have no idea.
	What happens to religious organizations?
	We have no idea.
	Not clear.
	The Supreme Court is going to give us the way.
	So now we are not ruled by the people of the United States in either their individual capacities or in their local capacities.
	We are ruled by a group of nine at the top of government.
	And people cheer this because after all, the legislature can't get together.
	Maybe the reason the legislature can't get together is because there are serious divisions of opinion on these issues.
	And when there are serious divisions of opinion on an issue, perhaps you should leave it to the local precinct.
	Perhaps you should leave it to individuals to make their own decisions.
	Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, by the way, rejected a bevy of cases protecting Second Amendment rights.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that it's really hot outside right now.
	In California, it got up to 90 degrees last week, and that means you need to be cool, you know, down there.
	And that means that you need Tommy John ultra-breathable underwear.
	Also, if you are a lady, Well, I guess now under Title VII.
	If you're not a lady, you might need a bra.
	I mean, I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Whatever floats your boat, man.
	They have a range of summer-ready breathable options, but they're cool cotton underwear for men and women.
	It's like having your own on-body AC.
	Tommy John's Cool Cotton is made from premium, natural Pima cotton for enhanced airflow.
	It evaporates sweat super fast, keeping you drier, cooler, and more comfortable than regular cotton.
	All of Tommy John's layers are built for next level comfort.
	Whether you're on the hunt for lounge pants or lazy day joggers or the softest Zuma ready tees and polos you have ever worn, Tommy John has got you covered.
	Upgrade to Tommy John today with enhanced designs that are super breathable and way more comfortable than anything else out there.
	Tommy John is so confident in their underwear that if you don't love your first pair, you can get a full refund with their best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free, guarantee.
	Tommy John, no adjustment needed.
	Once you go Tommy John, you're not gonna go back.
	For a limited time, go to TommyJohn.com slash Ben to get 20% off site-wide.
	My wife loves the ladies' underwear from Tommy John.
	I love the men's underwear from Tommy John.
	It's really solid stuff.
	Go check out TommyJohn.com slash Ben for 20% off site-wide.
	TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	You can go see the site for details.
	TommyJohn.com slash Ben for 20% off.
	Okay, so meanwhile, while the Supreme Court was declaring that it can fully invade freedom of association and possibly freedom of religion on behalf of rights that have never existed in the Constitution of the United States, right?
	The right to be employed by a person, which is not a thing.
	And to be employed by a person, if you come in dressed as a member of the opposite sex or claiming membership of the opposite sex, or the right to be employed by a religious organization, despite violating the tenets of that religious organization.
	All of these rights are now being declared.
	But there's one right the Supreme Court will not defend, and that is the right to keep and bear arms.
	In a New Jersey case, there was a New Jersey law that required a person to show a justifiable need before he can bear a handgun outside your home.
	Okay, and the Supreme Court, which has, remember, six Republican appointees on it, rejected it.
	The Supreme Court rejected it.
	They didn't even give it a writ.
	They decided they weren't even going to look at it.
	So while they were creating, out of whole cloth, federal rights for transgender people to employment, they were rejecting a writ that would clarify whether, in fact, you have a right to keep and bear arms.
	This is the group of people who are making decisions for you.
	Meanwhile, the justices also rejected the federal objection to California's migrant sanctuary law.
	The justices left intact a federal appeals court decision that upheld the central part of a 2017 California law.
	The administration argued that the measure undermines deportation efforts, violating federal immigration law and the Constitution.
	Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted review.
	Instead, the justices didn't even grant review of these local sanctuary laws, which are very, very controversial indeed.
	So well done, Supreme Court.
	I'm glad that we have this group of people at the top of our government who are making these sorts of decisions for all of America.
	It's really great stuff.
	Now, this does have some broader ramifications for the culture.
	So this is not just a question of the Supreme Court.
	The question of how you unify a country and how you tear it apart is preoccupying us right now on a cultural level.
	Because, again, there's a group of people in the United States, I would say the vast middle, who basically say, whatever floats your boat, do what you want.
	Do what you want, and we'll all deal with it.
	As long as you're not invading my rights, do what you want.
	And then there are a group of people who are in the middle of a cultural purge.
	And their idea is, it's good when the federal government sets these top, broad, top-down standards because it unifies us.
	It makes us all into little widgets of the federal government.
	And our culture should do the same.
	In fact, what we should be using the culture to do is purge people who don't think like us.
	And this is what you are seeing full-scale across the United States right now, particularly on the Black Lives Matter issue.
	Not because, again, everybody doesn't agree about Black Lives Matter.
	Again, every single person in America agrees that Black Lives Matter.
	That is not the question.
	The question is whether you believe that America is inherently and systemically racist, and that needs to be corrected by institutional mechanisms that use group injustice in favor of individual justice, right?
	That is the big question before us right now.
	And if you will not bend, if you will not bend the knee, then you will be destroyed, right?
	That is the idea here.
	There's a left-wing account called Palmer Report, very popular account on the left.
	And I thought this person summed this up well.
	Palmer Report wrote, Which is hysterical because conservatism, of course, is predicated on certain fundamental declaration of independence notions like equality before law.
	All men are created equal with inalienable rights.
	That is the predicate for conservatism.
	The Palmer Report says, Conservatism means you don't believe in equality.
	It means you want it all for yourself, and you're willing to destroy other groups of people to take it all for yourself.
	That's not a crime against the law, but it's a crime against humanity, and we must acknowledge as much.
	Conservatives cannot be, cannot be teachers, police officers, doctors, lawyers, coaches, or bosses.
	It's constitutionally unfair to others who are subjected to conservatives' deranged judgment.
	Conservatives can do menial work.
	Until they're ready to join the human race.
	At least he's saying the quiet part out loud.
	But now, this is sort of the idea in large swaths of our culture.
	Everything must be destroyed.
	The individual regime of rights, the individual notion that you have individual rights, that has to be tossed out the window because, of course, individual rights protect bad people.
	And we can't have that.
	Instead, everybody must be made good through the power of the federal government and through the power of cultural compulsion.
	That's how we achieve unity, is through division.
	We achieve unity by attacking each other, by Maoist struggle sessions.
	We achieve unity by forcing rules from the government on other people.
	Or alternatively, by using the culture to destroy everybody who stands in our way.
	That is the goal here.
	It's a perennial revolution, a purifying fire that unifies us all by cleansing the impure elements.
	And this is what we are seeing right now on the most bizarre scale imaginable.
	So bizarre that, for example, Boston is now considering removing, talking about impurity, Boston is now considering removing a statue of Abraham Lincoln freeing a slave.
	We're now going to remove this statue, according to Boston.
	They're warm to it.
	Why?
	Because the idea is that this is the white patriarchy.
	A petition to remove the statue was spearheaded by an African-American man from Boston named Torrey Bullock, who says he's been seeing the statue since he was a kid.
	Bullock says his petition has more than 7,000 signatures and the attention of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, who Bullock posted is willing to talk about removing it.
	Bullock says it says it's a statue that's supposed to represent freedom, but to me it represents submissiveness.
	It represents know your place because that's where you belong.
	Okay, then you're incompetent.
	Then you don't understand human symbolism.
	This is about the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the president responsible for the end of slavery in the United States.
	And we're going to remove that.
	By the way, this is not what the statue represents.
	The statue is a replica of an identical statue in Washington, D.C.
	that freed slaves paid for as a tribute to Lincoln.
	The statue, which still stands in Lincoln Park, was erected with contributions from hundreds of former slaves who wanted to pay tribute to the man who had proclaimed their freedom in 1863, according to the Washington Post.
	The Post noted that a broken chain was specifically placed in the slave's hand to make it clear the slave was an eager participant in his own liberation.
	In 1876, Frederick Douglass spoke at the unveiling of the memorial in Washington, D.C.
	He said, the sentiment that brings us here today is one of the noblest that can stir and thrill the human heart.
	It has crowned and made glorious the high places of all civilized nations, but the grandest and most enduring works of art designed to illustrate the characters and perpetuate the memories of great public men.
	But apparently, bad.
	Bad.
	We're removing it.
	They're talking about removing it now.
	Meanwhile, the LA Times is in turmoil.
	Because it turns out that the journalists over at the LA Times want to make sure that they don't cover specific issues.
	Because it would not be racially fair to cover rioting and looting apparently at the LA Times, right?
	All impure elements of the woke culture must be purged, including the editorial board over at the LA Times.
	By the way, the editorial board at the LA Times is so far left and so dishonest, they printed a piece today that suggested that the killing of Raymond Brooks in Atlanta was the killing of an unarmed black man, which is not true.
	He was literally holding an officer's taser and firing it at him.
	That LA Times is now being purged.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact That you should not be going to your local auto zone right now because number one, why would you?
	And number two, because you shouldn't be congregating in large groups unless you're protesting for a good cause, according to many in power these days.
	Instead, why not just shop online?
	Head on over to rockauto.com.
	It's much easier than walking into a store and somebody demanding quick answers to things like, is your Odyssey an LX or an EX and then overcharging you.
	For the part.
	Instead, head on over to rockauto.com.
	They always offer the lowest prices possible, rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.
	Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
	Rockauto.com is a family business, serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
	Head on over to rockauto.com.
	Shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
	Best of all, the price is over at rockauto.com.
	Always reliably low.
	The same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
	Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
	The answer?
	You should not.
	Head on over to rockauto.com.
	Okay, we're gonna get into more of the culture war.
	The purge is on.
	We'll get to it in just a moment.
	You can get the best part for the best price.
	Go to rockauto.com right now.
	See all the parts available for your car or truck.
	Write Shapiro in there.
	How did you hear about us box?
	So they know that we sent you.
	Okay, we're going to get into more of the culture war.
	The purge is on.
	We'll get to it in just a moment.
	First, let me remind you that this year is insane.
	I mean, just the amount of news that's coming out on a daily basis is mind-boggling.
	And this is why you desperately need a Reader's Pass from DailyWire.com.
	You'll get access to exclusive op-eds from us, your podcast hosts, as well as guest writers, in-depth analysis from our Daily Wire reporters on top of our 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 99 cents.
	You also get access to our mobile app, and you receive push notifications for breaking news and special content, as well as joining the community of Daily Wire members who are actively commenting and discussing our content with each other.
	That's mobile ad-free access to all of Daily Wire's news, exclusive op-eds, all of our podcasts on our mobile app, all for the low price of $1.
	And best of all, your dollars are getting you the news you need without the left to spin.
	So head on over to dailywire.com, slash subscribe, and join today.
	Also, make sure that you go pick up a copy of my new book.
	It is available July 21st.
	You're pre-ordering it over at dailywire.com, slash, but it's called How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	Everything that's happening in America right now, like all of it, is explained in my new book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	Also, how to rebut the leftist narrative The disintegrationist narrative.
	That the federal government needs more power in order to cram down rules on you because you're evil and bad and America is evil and bad.
	I think the book is vital reading right now.
	I rarely talk up my own work in this way, but I think it's a really, really important book.
	I think you're gonna want it.
	I think you're gonna want your kids to read it.
	If your kids are in school.
	Go check it out right now.
	Dailywire.com slash Ben to pre-order How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps or head on over to amazon.com and pre-order it over there or barnesandnoble.com or any of the other booksellers.
	Dailywire.com slash Ben to pre-order my new book today.
	Today, you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So when it comes to the cultural left, I feel like the cultural left is basically, at this point, acting like Hans Gruber in Die Hard.
	Remember, there's a scene in which Hans Gruber executes a hostage, right?
	And then he says to John McClane, Bruce Willis, he says to him, you know, Keep resisting.
	Sooner or later, I'm going to get to somebody you do care about.
	Sooner or later, the left is going to get to something you do care about.
	Because the left won't stop until you do.
	Right?
	They push where there's mush.
	And until they feel some resistance, they're just going to continue the purge.
	And so this is why you're seeing them target leftist institutions, right?
	The easiest thing in the world is to target leftist or weak-kneed institutions because they can get away with it.
	This is why they're targeting the media.
	The first places they are going are academia and the media because the left already runs those places and they are deathly afraid of being labeled Mensheviks by the Bolsheviks.
	They are afraid of being purified in the angered 1793 French Revolution fire.
	This is what they are afraid of.
	So over at the New York Times, NPR is now reporting that there is an internal uprising to describe the anger over racial inequity at the paper.
	Scores have participated in intense internal debates over the LA Times coverage of recent protests and hiring practices, to the point that senior editors have weighed in, promising to listen and learn.
	So the woke staffers at the L.A.
	Times are now running the show.
	Again, this just demonstrates that the real problem here is not the woke staffers.
	It's the cowardice of the leadership of these institutions.
	Because if you're the L.A.
	Times, you're a far-left institution.
	You have been my entire life.
	My parents canceled the L.A.
	Times in, like, the early 90s because of how far left they were.
	And my parents, at that point, were, like, moderate right.
	Okay, so that is—the L.A.
	Times has always been a wild left institution.
	But now, they're being accused of racism.
	They're bending over backwards.
	Executive editor Norman Perlstein said, I would say in the cases of black journalists, we do not have enough journalists in positions where they are able to help us tell stories that really need to be told.
	I've asked myself in hindsight what got us to where we are now.
	Maybe it was thinking about whether to hire the best journalist and not how to hire on the basis of race alone.
	In L.A., the inequities sparking today's rancor have existed for years, long before the current owner or editors were involved.
	But they were brought to a head, journalists say, by Floyd's killing, by the killing of George Floyd, and the protests demanding societal change.
	They are saying that the L.A.
	Times has been pandering to white readers, which is just insane.
	Again, read the L.A.
	Times.
	There's no way it could possibly come to this conclusion.
	But apparently, because the L.A.
	Times covered the fact that there was rioting and looting, which was kind of noteworthy in L.A., which was shut down for a full week because of rioting and looting, and Beverly Hills was closed at 1 p.m., the protests weren't the big story in L.A.
	Forcing everybody into their house at 6 p.m.
	was actually the big story in L.A.
	The L.A.
	Times is racist for this.
	In an internal Slack exchange, LA Times film reporter, Saniya Kelly, who is black, said the newspaper had focused too squarely and too often on the question of looting.
	Well, clearly she has, you know, deep perspective on this as the film reporter, as the film, but she's black.
	So black Trump's film reporter in terms of qualifications to talk about what is worthy of news coverage in this area.
	She says we can't constantly pander to our primarily white audience with stories like this or affirm their biases.
	One of the responsibilities of the job is to stake the facts and tell it true.
	There's so much implicit bias in those few sentences alone, and it's alienating the viewers we're trying to attract, as well as the people of color, journalists like me, who contribute so much to this paper and then have to read stories like this that oversimplify our struggles and realities.
	So, good times over at the LA Times.
	Meanwhile, over at the Chicago Sun-Times, they've decided on an editorial decision.
	Okay, you ready for this editorial decision?
	Talk about pandering to the woke base.
	This is insane.
	The Chicago Sun-Times has made an editorial decision.
	From now on, when they refer to Black Americans, or Black people, they're going to capitalize the B in Black.
	They will capitalize the B in black when referring to people who are part of the African diaspora, according to Nader Issa, who is a reporter over there.
	Newsroom management just announced.
	The same will be done for B in brown.
	So Suntime Style will now read capital black and capital brown communities.
	Capital black, capital brown.
	How about white?
	I mean, as long as we're just labeling people by skin color, because black and brown are not actual races.
	Those are skin colors, right?
	I mean, a race would be presumably connected to an ethnicity or a place of origin.
	So if you're going to talk about skin colors, because brown certainly is, you might say that black is a race.
	Brown is not a race.
	Brown encompasses a wide variety of people from a wide variety of different races.
	Brown people presumably includes people who are Latino or Hispanic, and it also includes presumably Native Americans.
	Brown covers a lot of ground.
	But they will continue to lowercase the W in white.
	So white will be lowercase.
	Why?
	Because it's a wider descriptor of people of numerous origins.
	So first of all, how racist is this?
	Right, the idea is that Africa is a singular origin, but white people are from numerous origins.
	Okay, Africa is not a singular origin.
	That's an entire continent, guys.
	There are lots of different tribes, lots of different ethnicities inside of Africa.
	Like, to pretend that that is like a unified body politic, and that you can just say, everybody from Africa, that's part of one group, that's black.
	And everybody from, what, Latin America and South America, all those people are part of one body politic, and that's Brown, capital B. And all the white people, that's from a bunch of different, that's like France, that's Italy, and that's England, and that's...
	Okay, so what are they really saying?
	What is the tacit message underlying the decision to capitalize black and brown versus white?
	The idea is that white people are only unified, not by any sort of racial identity, but they are unified instead in opposition to black and brown people, right?
	That's the actual narrative, is that black and brown people are cohesive identities.
	White is not a cohesive identity, except in opposition to black and brown people.
	Now, all of this is crap.
	Black and brown are not cohesive identities, because again, you could be a West Indian immigrant to the United States, and be black and that is not the same thing as you grew up in the in the american south you could be from jamaica and be black that is not the same thing as you grew up in louisiana obviously there's wide diversity in human relations but the decision here to label people as part of a unified group because they are black or because they are brown
	but if you're white then you're not really part of a unified group like i'm not complaining that they're not saying white is unified group i'm complaining that they're saying that all black and brown people are alike that all black people are like and all brown people are like but white people are diverse so the only reason to use white is in opposition to black and brown so much of this is about stoking racial division not fostering inclusiveness or seeing people as individuals meanwhile it's not just the media that are being bullied here - Yeah.
	It is also, I mean, it is also the Boy Scouts.
	So the Boy Scouts are now apparently considering a Black Lives Matter badge.
	The Boy Scouts of America says they are committed to introducing a specific diversity and inclusion merit badge, which is perfect.
	I mean, you're out in the forest and you need to build a fire because these are usually the skills that you're taught in the Boy Scouts.
	You need to put together a fire.
	You need to be able to survive out there in the wilderness.
	You can't do it without a diversity officer, guys.
	You just can't.
	You can't do it without the diversity merit badge.
	If you're out in the wilderness, gotta survive on your own, survivor situation, first thing you need, you take a look at the diversity and inclusion merit badge, you're like, ah, I know what I'll do.
	I will find a racial quota system!
	And then we'll put together a stick-gathering group in order to build a fire based on my diversity officer.
	Diversity Officer Bob, please put together a racially diverse Boy Scout group.
	Like, what in the world?
	What does this have to do with Boy Scouting?
	Look, the Boy Scouts basically surrendered because they didn't want their non-profit status revoked in the state of California.
	And they surrendered by suggesting that they were going to change the rules about Christian conduct and about traditionally moral conduct.
	They decided they were going to allow girls in the Boy Scouts, for example.
	Like, all of this stuff is silly, but the Boy Scouts going full on, you need a merit badge for Black Lives Matter?
	I was not under the impression that the Boy Scouts were in favor of black people being killed.
	In fact, there are a lot of black Boy Scouts and Eagle Scouts, last I checked.
	But apparently the Boy Scouts have a merit badge.
	I look forward to, by the way, all of these.
	I want the anti-Semitism merit badge.
	I like the anti-Latino.
	The anti-anti-Latino merit badge.
	The anti-bigotry merit badge.
	We need the pro-trans merit badge.
	We need all of these merit badges.
	Very important stuff.
	According to the Boy Scouts, they say the 12 points of the scout law that define a scout are all important.
	But at this moment, we are called on to be brave.
	Brave means taking action because it is the right thing to do.
	We realize we have not been as brave as we should have been as scouts.
	We always stand for what is right and take action when the situation demands it.
	There's no place for racism, not in scouting and not in our communities.
	Racism will not be tolerated.
	I was not aware that until now the Boy Scouts were like full on good with the racism.
	But apparently they've changed now.
	The Boy Scouts of America stands with black families and black community because we believe that black lives matter.
	This is not a political issue.
	It is a human rights issue and one we all have a duty to address.
	So they're including a specific diversity and inclusion merit badge that will be required for the rank of Eagle Scout.
	It will build on components within existing merit badges, including the American cultures and citizenship in the community merit badges, which require scouts to learn about and engage with other groups and cultures to increase understanding and spur positive action.
	I feel like the Boy Scouts may have lost the thread here a little bit.
	Again, I was under the impression that the Boy Scouts were pretty anti-racism in the first place, that actually their original 12 points about human decency sort of covered this, but apparently not.
	Meanwhile, how bad has this become, the purge?
	The purge has become so bad that a black high school principal is now under fire in Chicago.
	Why?
	Because she recommended that her students not riot and loot.
	Not kidding, this is the Chicago Tribune.
	There's a person named Joyce Kenner, When she was 11, she witnessed people taking to the streets in her hometown of Dayton, Ohio for the same things we are marching for today.
	She said she recalls her fight of her father writing black-owned business across the window of his record store so protesters would spare it from damage.
	And she says she stands with the Black Lives Matter protesters.
	But she did something bad.
	What did she do?
	She said that people should be pushing for a seat at the table rather than rioting and looting.
	Very, very bad.
	She asked students that if they protest, they not participate in violence or looting.
	And so now she's on the chopping block for saying no violence and no looting.
	Everything must be purged.
	The things must be purged.
	The purge is ongoing.
	And this is how you create unity.
	Again, this all ties into the broader vision of unity.
	Unity is created when you purge all the non-believers.
	That's how unity is created.
	When you have top-down rules set by the guy with the gun, the government, and when you purge all non-believers.
	Now, it seems to me this is actually gonna create more division than unity, because it turns out there are a lot of people in this country who don't agree with a lot of the causes that are being propelled forward here.
	Not the cause of, you have to be mean to trans people.
	Or not the cause of, you have to not hire gays and lesbians.
	And not the cause of, you don't care about black lives.
	No, the cause of, you care about all those things and you don't like any of those things.
	And also, we believe in individual rights to do things, including things you disagree with.
	Right?
	If you believe in that, you now must be purged.
	So, this is likely to have some rather deleterious effects on unity.
	It turns out that when you achieve unity by purging people, all the people you purged are not unified with you.
	They're outside the unified group.
	And now, you have created a division, where there was no division before.
	If you agree on broad propositions and then allow people to go about their business, a lot more people can be included in the us.
	When you create a very specific set of rules that everyone must abide by, and that are going to be crammed down, it's very easy to create a them out of an us.
	And that's exactly what's going on right now.
	The divisions have been exacerbated, they've not been bridged.
	And every time the left tries to bridge a division, they're not trying to bridge a division, they're just trying to crush dissent.
	And that is really, really ugly stuff.
	Okay, meanwhile, you can tell who is the in-group and who is the out-group.
	It's perfectly obvious in terms of COVID policy, for example.
	Who's the in-group and who's the out-group, right?
	If you're part of the in-group, then the special privileges attach.
	Like apparently, COVID doesn't apply to you if you're part of the in-group.
	If you're part of the in-group, then COVID is fine.
	Everything is fine.
	So, a couple notes about COVID.
	Number one, there's been a lot of talk about the uptick in COVID across the nation.
	And supposedly, there are spikes everywhere.
	This dumped the stock market last week.
	Not a lot of information to support that.
	We are seeing increased numbers of cases because of the increased amount of testing.
	That does not mean that the tests create the cases.
	It means more cases are being identified.
	But the overall positivity rate is about the same as it was.
	Scott Gottlieb, former head of the FDA, he tweeted out the overall national positivity rate.
	And he showed that it has basically been stagnant since mid-May.
	In fact, it's a little bit down since mid-May, despite the fact that the daily number of tests run is up dramatically.
	We're running half a million tests at this point a day, basically.
	That's what it looks like, the seven-day rolling average of COVID testing progress.
	Daily tests run.
	So we are now running a lot of tests on a daily basis.
	Yeah, we're now up to nearly half a million tests run on a daily basis in the United States.
	And we are about 5% positivity rate.
	So the positivity rates aren't rising.
	Also, hospitalizations are falling in a lot of places like Florida.
	So that suggests that perhaps these tests are picking up a lot of asymptomatic individuals.
	that people who don't have severe problems are being picked up by the test.
	But the media are trumpeting COVID-19 as a continuing danger, except if you are in the right category.
	So if you're a protester, then there's no problem at all.
	As I mentioned yesterday, Bill de Blasio has told his contact tracers in New York City, do not ask people with COVID if they've been to a protest.
	Don't ask them.
	I mean, wouldn't that be like the number one job?
	Were you in a large group of people shouting without a mask on?
	That seems to me like that might be the number one job, but no.
	In New York, they're going to ignore that.
	Meanwhile, Bill de Blasio is welding shut playgrounds in Jewish areas.
	Because the great danger, obviously, is little kids playing with each other in Jewish areas.
	Now listen, I think there's a good case to be made that people continue to socially distance and wear masks and do all of the things that are responsible.
	But I'm also not going to pretend that it is not wild hypocrisy to suggest that you can have tens of thousands of people rallying in Brooklyn without masks and in direct contact with each other, but also that young kids cannot play at a playground.
	By the way, young kids are not getting this thing.
	The death rate for very young people in the United States for COVID-19 is lower than the death rate from the flu.
	For very young people.
	It accelerates as you get older.
	So, a lot of Jews in Williamsburg have basically been like, you know what, forget this.
	You're going to weld the playground shut?
	Well, we're going to go get a lock cutter and we're just going to cut into the playground.
	There are a bunch of local assembly members who have joined in this, breaking open the playground so that kids can play at the playground, because kids are not giving this to each other.
	And by the way, there's a fairly good case that if they are prosecuted, they will file a lawsuit and they will say that this is discriminatory, that Bill de Blasio is basically cracking down on the Jews, but he's not cracking down on anybody who is shattering shop windows, which is absolutely correct.
	Bill de Blasio himself, by the way, massive hypocrite.
	Bill de Blasio is apparently out sick.
	He said he would not be COVID tested.
	He said he would not be COVID tested, Bill de Blasio, which is fully crazy.
	But no worries.
	The media know.
	Again, if you're part of the in-group, you can do whatever you want.
	If you're part of the out-group, then you can't do anything, right?
	Then you are barred.
	The Jews here are part of the out-group.
	You know who's part of the in-group?
	All the people who are protesting.
	You know who's part of the out-group?
	Anybody who wants to go to a Trump rally.
	So Sanjay Gupta on CNN, he was like, yeah, Trump's indoor rally is the problem.
	You guys didn't care five seconds ago when hundreds of thousands of people were protesting in the streets, but now Trump is the problem.
	You know we can all see you.
	We don't have the memory of Dory from Finding Nemo.
	And we're not like small fish that have the memory of a five-second span.
	We remember when a week ago you guys were all championing people out in the streets.
	I mean, it's incredible how brazen the media are about this sort of stuff.
	Here's Sanjay Gupta on CNN.
	The gathering that we're talking about here is the highest risk, right?
	20,000 capacity, I believe, in this particular arena.
	That's the number of people they want in there.
	There'll be no physical distancing.
	It's indoors, obviously.
	People coming from all over the place, many of them elderly.
	They're then going back to their communities.
	You're putting people shoulder-to-shoulder, masks optional.
	The virus is the virus, Chris.
	I mean, we've been talking about this for five and a half months.
	The virus hasn't changed in all this.
	It's a contagious virus.
	And that scenario there is the worst case.
	Unless you're part of the in-group.
	If you're part of the in-group, well then, you know, things have changed.
	Then things have changed.
	Again, it's all about... We have now reached the point where if you're part of the good group, then none of the rules apply to you.
	Even viruses.
	You're immune to them.
	If you're part of the out-group, then that comes with no dispensation whatsoever.
	Right?
	You get ripped away from your job.
	You are declared unfit for human society.
	And also, maybe the law will come for you.
	So very exciting stuff.
	This is creating a new unity.
	I feel like the left has really pushed us to a new unity in America.
	This is all working out great, guys.
	It's working out fantastically well.
	All righty.
	Time for a thing that I hate, and then we'll do a thing that I like.
	So yesterday, there's a big story that went around, and it's worth debunking because it went viral, and that is that some NYPD officers say they were poisoned at a Shake Shack.
	Basically, what they said is that there were three officers who were handed drinks full of bleach.
	It turns out that people just hadn't cleaned the machine properly.
	They did an investigation, the people hadn't cleaned the machine properly.
	It is good to knock down those narratives.
	So now, the entire media have decided that the NYPD as a whole is bad.
	The NYPD as a whole is mean, and they tell false stories because of all this.
	So in other words, these guys were given cups with bleach in them, and then they drank it, and they said this tastes like bleach, and they had to go to the hospital, and they suspected that it may have been purposeful given all the anti-cop stuff, and it turns out not to have been purposeful.
	Now the NYPD is very bad, but all the people who attack the NYPD are good.
	Okay, so the NYPD is now going to disband its plainclothes anti-crime units.
	So, by the way, the crime rates in these big cities are just going to spike.
	They're going to spike dramatically and obviously.
	That is the next thing to happen here.
	The New York Post reports the NYPD is disbanding its undercover anti-crime unit after being involved in a quote-unquote disproportionate number of shootings.
	The roughly 600 cops spread out at precincts and PSAs across the city will be reassigned into other posts, including the detective bureau and neighborhood police, the city's top cop said.
	Now, one of the reasons you have plainclothespolice is because you actually don't want people knowing all the time that the cops are there.
	It's the same reason the cops hide behind hedges when they're policing traffic.
	Because if you see the cop, then you stop committing the crime preemptively, or you just go to another area and commit the crime.
	And plainclothes cops mean you don't know who the cops are, so presumably, if you suspect that there are lots of cops around, you're not going to do what you want to do in terms of criminal activity.
	But apparently this is very bad.
	So they're getting rid of the plainclothes cops unit, which of course is definitely going to not result in higher crime or anything.
	NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea said, This is 21st century policing, intelligence data, shot spotter, video DNA, and building up prosecutable cases.
	It continues to be building these cases, cases on a small number of people that unfortunately still terrorize a part of the city.
	I would consider this in the realm of closing on one of the last chapters on stop, question, and frisk.
	Shea said, When you look at the number of anti-crime officers that operate within New York City, and you look at a disproportionate, quite frankly, percentage of complaints and shootings, and they are doing exactly what was asked of them, it will be felt immediately throughout the five districts' attorney's office, It will be felt immediately in the communities that we protect.
	There's a policy shift coming from me personally, and men and women in the police department were doing what I asked before me asked.
	They've done an exceptional job.
	I think it's time to move forward and change how we police in this city.
	Well, good luck with that.
	We will see how changes in the policing of New York result in more crime.
	We talked yesterday about a study from Harvard by Roland Fryer talking about the fact that five police departments were investigated after a case of a homicide saw a dramatic increase in the amount of murder in those cities in the direct aftermath of those investigations because cops knew the story and they were like, you know what?
	Not gonna go out of my way here.
	I'm not going to go out of my way.
	I'll respond to a 911 call.
	I'm not going to preemptively walk the streets looking for crime.
	So NYPD is now doing all of that.
	Meanwhile, Seattle has decided a great idea would be to ban crowd control weapons.
	So you can't use tear gas anymore.
	By the way, I think it is worth distinguishing here between chokeholds and suppression holds, right?
	There's a difference.
	So people are saying that chokeholds should be banned.
	Chokeholds have been banned in most major police departments.
	A chokehold is where you go for the trachea.
	Chokehold is where you actually try to cut off somebody's supply of air.
	A suppression hold, as I was taught by Steven Crowder when he actually used one on me, cuts off the supply of oxygen to the brain by basically cutting off your blood supply.
	Essentially, what you're doing is you're not cutting off someone's supply of air, which is incredibly dangerous and they will die.
	A suppression hold is you cut off oxygen to the brain and it knocks them out for a specific period of time.
	You start to lose consciousness.
	Well now, the Seattle city cap— I'm wondering how they expect people to suppress criminals.
	I really don't know.
	They're making policing— Like, don't call it— If you want to ban chokeholds, go for it.
	But, like, let's be specific about what it is you're banning.
	Are you also banning the ability of cops to use jujitsu moves that suppress suspects if they're being violent?
	Right?
	So now, you can't suppress the guy.
	You can't knock the guy out.
	Instead, what do you do?
	I mean, you can't wail on him, because that's assault.
	Right?
	You also can't suppress the guy.
	You can put a knee on his back, I suppose, but if he's conscious, then he could knock you off.
	This is all making policing incredibly unworkable.
	Somebody should talk to a cop before they change the cop policies.
	Wouldn't it behoove Joe Biden to talk to a cop before he says things like, you know, just shoot the guy in the leg?
	What the hell does Joe Biden know about policing?
	In fact, what do most U.S.
	senators know about policing?
	The answer is virtually nothing.
	Seattle City Council is going even further.
	They are now pushing To get rid of the ability for the police to use tear gas and pepper spray and other crowd control devices, which makes perfect sense because you literally have a six block area of Seattle that is now called CHOP, because they changed it from CHAZ to CHOP, that has been taken over by protesters.
	And by the way, people who are spray painting every business surface in the area.
	You have that, but you can't disperse the crowd.
	In a 9-0 vote Monday, they voted to get rid of both chokeholds as well as tear gas and pepper spray.
	One week ago, Seattle Police Officer Guild President Mike Solon said criminal agitators had taken over recent peaceful demonstrations, throwing bottles, rocks, cinder blocks, metal objects, and incendiary devices at police officers.
	He added that officers had been injured as a result.
	In regards to tear gas deployed in the early morning hours of June 8th in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, Solon said that is a less lethal tool that is effective in restoring public order.
	See, this is the thing.
	You get rid of things like tear gas, what do you think is going to happen when the police have to disperse somebody?
	They can no longer use the tear gas, which is, you fire tear gas in an area, it makes people cry and choke up, and then they have to leave.
	As opposed to, now you can't use that.
	So what, you got police officers waiting in there with a baton?
	Like, how does this make things better?
	Unless you're just abandoning the area of the city completely.
	As they have.
	I mean, as Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best, who, by the way, is a woman of color, said, That said, it has been very clear that people don't want us to use CS.
	That said, it has been very clear that people don't want us to use CS.
	Well, people just don't want you to police.
	So they're not just going to disband the police.
	They're just going to make it impossible for people to police.
	Meanwhile, how much media coverage has there been of the police officers who've been injured over the past several weeks?
	And we're talking about dozens of police officers injured, including some who are dead.
	Have you heard the story of Shea Michelonis?
	I hadn't.
	A Las Vegas police officer shot in the head during an anti-racism protest that turned violent.
	He's now paralyzed from the neck down.
	He's 29.
	He was shot during an altercation that broke out following a mostly peaceful protest down the Las Vegas strip on June 1st.
	By the way, I do love how the media, I mean, that's Daily Wire taking that media coverage from other places like CBS News.
	Can you imagine a Tea Party protest that erupts into violence and a cop gets shot in the head and is now paralyzed being described as a mostly peaceful protest?
	Can you imagine that?
	Of course you cannot.
	Can you imagine an anti-lockdown protest where a single person gets shot and them saying, oh, well, you know, it's a mostly peaceful protest.
	Mostly peaceful.
	Mostly peaceful.
	It's like being a little bit pregnant.
	Las Vegas police, who have a suspect in custody related to the shooter, appear to believe that he was targeted because he was an in-uniform officer.
	A 20-year-old man deliberately shot Michelonis during the protest, one of hundreds being held across the nation.
	The guy who did the shooting took out a gun and fired at officers.
	He's charged with attempted murder, battery, and firearms charges, being held in lieu of $1 million.
	According to Michelonis' family, Shea's on a ventilator and will remain so.
	He's paralyzed from the neck down, unable to speak.
	He's awake, seems to recognize his family members.
	So, well done everybody, because the only shootings in America that matter are the ones that people in the media say matter.
	Not the shootings of a perfectly innocent police officer who's now paralyzed from the head down, from the neck down.
	Instead, the focus must all be on this shooting in Atlanta, where a man knocked over two cops, stole a taser, and tried to fire a taser at an officer before being shot.
	This man is now apparently a brutal racist, according to the entirety of the mainstream media.
	CNN's Bakari Sellers, commentator, he says that Rashard Brooks was murdered point-blank.
	Murdered.
	Point-blank.
	This is a perfectly justified shoot.
	I talked to a bunch of cops.
	You cannot tell cops that if someone steals your taser and tries to tase you, that you're supposed to stand there and take it.
	Because after all, it's a non-deadly weapon.
	I mean, eh.
	Yeah, except that after they shoot you with the taser, what do you think they are going to do?
	What do you think they are going to do?
	They've already demonstrated they're fine with taking a weapon off a cop.
	You're now a cop who's prone.
	Does this sound like a good plan to you?
	According to CNN, it does.
	I love all these people who are real experts on policing, noting what is and is not good police procedure.
	It really is a wonderland of newfound police expertise.
	Here's Bakari Sellers saying that Rayshard Brooks was murdered point blank.
	Murdered point blank.
	Again, we showed you the tape yesterday.
	He was in an open conversation with two cops for 25 minutes while they attempted to get him to submit to arrest.
	And attempted to work out a solution with him.
	They called backup.
	They did all the right things.
	He was still quote-unquote murdered.
	This means you just don't want cops to exist, basically.
	Here's Bakari Sellers on CNN.
	This is as clear as you can get.
	I mean, he was murdered, period.
	Point blank, period.
	I think the autopsy called it homicide.
	And I watch people bend over backwards, and they're gonna bend over backwards after this segment on social media, et cetera, and say, well, you know, he shouldn't have struggled with the police.
	He shouldn't have been drinking while driving.
	He shouldn't have run.
	He even fired the taser back at the police.
	Well, you know, Wolf, none of those are death penalty crimes.
	And so here we are again, Well, I mean, attempted murder isn't a death penalty crime either.
	Murder is a death penalty crime.
	It turns out that the standards for what a cop is supposed to take do not include being tased in the face.
	That is not something that a cop is supposed to stand there and take.
	Not a single cop is trained for this sort of stuff.
	And by the way, if you try to train cops to say, oh yeah, if somebody takes out your taser and tries to tase you, you basically are supposed to just, you know... The guy's taser was gone, by the way.
	Like, what exactly is the cop supposed to do at that point?
	The guy's got his taser.
	He's firing the taser at him.
	So presumably what?
	Is he supposed to just try and tackle him when the other guy has the taser?
	That's the way this works now?
	You're making policing utterly... It's just not practical.
	I mean, there's no way to have a police force this way.
	There's no wonder police... I'm getting calls from police officers all over the country saying, I'm out.
	I'm out.
	The crime wave that's going to come in the aftermath of this is going to be extraordinary.
	It's going to be an extraordinary crime wave in the aftermath of this in major cities.
	CNN's Chris Cuomo, who obviously knows every... He knows about as much about policing as Chris Cuomo knows about the Constitution, which is to say nothing.
	And about as much about this as he knows about Practical policies for preventing COVID, which apparently includes bathing in bleach, according to his wife.
	Here was Chris Cuomo yesterday suggesting the arresting officers had poor technique.
	I'm definitely going to listen to this block of wood about arresting technique because I think that he's probably an expert on police procedure.
	I see poor technique, and that matters in this analysis.
	If you can't do your job using minimal force, you wind up using more and more force.
	Hence, two officers not being able to control in a struggle that anybody who's had any measure of fight training sees, they don't know what they're doing.
	on the ground with this man.
	They don't.
	I'm sorry.
	No disrespect to police.
	I have high regard for how many of you do the job, men and women.
	This is not good technique.
	Oh, it's not good techniques.
	Chris Cuomo is now the arbiter of good technique.
	He's grappling.
	He's grappling.
	I mean, can we also point out here that if the officers had used a suppression hold and something bad had happened to them, you would have called a murder?
	This would have been a good scenario to use a suppression hold, right?
	The guy's rolling around with cops trying to steal their weapon.
	This would have been a good opportunity to maybe knock him out using a suppression hold, but you would then call it a choke hold and call it murder if something bad happened from a secondary health condition.
	So cops, it's a no-win scenario for cops.
	And you're going to completely botch the coverage of the situation because you have to come up with some reason that the cop is wrong here.
	Trevor Noah, again another police expert, he says the sober one should have de-escalated.
	They tried to de-escalate with this guy for 25 minutes.
	25 minutes!
	The tape is like 40 minutes long total.
	Trevor Noah blaming the cops, of course, because the cops are always to blame.
	Man, the aftermath of this is going to be so ugly because it turns out that when you tell police officers they can't do their job, guess what they do?
	They don't do their job.
	They leave them.
	They leave the jobs.
	Here's Trevor Noah.
	People say he shouldn't have risen.
	Yeah, he's drunk.
	I'm not excusing his, but he's drunk.
	In a situation like that, the sober person, in my opinion, the sober person, the onus is upon them to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand.
	You're sober, he's drunk.
	How are two sober men wrestling with a drunk person on the ground?
	How does it get that far?
	How does it end with him losing his life?
	It ends with him losing his life because he stole a taser off a cop and tried to shoot the cop with the taser.
	This is not difficult.
	This is not difficult.
	But again, the goal here is there's an in-group and an out-group.
	If you're part of the out-group, and that now includes cops, then you are simply deemed not woke enough no matter what you do.
	And so anything is justified against you, including maybe murder charges.
	They're not talking about murder charges for this cop.
	I swear, you'd have to be a dullard to go into policing at this point in time.
	Seriously, I have nothing but admiration for people who go into policing, but I don't know how a sane and rational person could look at this climate and think to themselves, you know what?
	I want to be a cop right now.
	And in fact, I don't know many cops who are thinking that they want to stay cops right now, given the climate in America's major cities.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, also, we have an all-access tonight, by the way.
	So, if you're a subscriber to Daily Wire, you can ask me all sorts of questions.
	I wear a t-shirt, that's the big pitch.
	I know, it ain't much of a pitch, but you can ask your personal questions to me over at dailywire.com.
	Also, make sure to pick up a copy of my new book, which is coming out July 21st, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	You're listening to 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.
	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.

▲