All Episodes
Sept. 23, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:00:08
The Golden Calf Of Politics | Ep. 1101
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Democrats continue to scream over Republicans voting on a Trump Supreme Court nominee.
Idolatry of RBG breaks out as Democrats target Amy Coney Barrett's Catholicism.
And Wells Fargo's CEO comes under fire for saying something perfectly obvious about lack of minority job candidates.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Stand up for your digital rights.
Take action at expressvpn.com.
So it looks as though Republicans have the votes.
Mitt Romney now says that he is going to vote at least in favor of the nominee, if the nominee is qualified, which presumably the nominee will be.
Now even Lisa Murkowski, the senator from Alaska, she is apparently giving signs that she may vote for the nominee.
Because I haven't seen the nominee yet, but if I see the nominee and the nominee is qualified, not sure why I shouldn't vote for that nominee, which leaves only Susan Collins in vulnerable state in Maine as the lone Republican who would not vote for a Trump nominee, which means that whoever Trump nominates is likely to pass with flying colors.
President Trump signaled his pleasure with this yesterday.
He praised Mitt Romney.
So Mitt Romney has this very weird career where he goes from being good to bad and bad to good and good to bad for everybody.
Now he is on Trump's good side.
Honestly, I've always been relatively Warm toward Mitt Romney.
I think that Romney is an honest guy, even when I disagreed with a lot of the stuff he was doing, including how he voted on impeachment.
I was not quite as sure as some other people on the conservative side were that Romney was going to say that he wasn't going to vote on this nominee.
I just thought that that would be a career ender for him, and it would be immoral to vote.
Here was Trump praising Mitt Romney, the senator from Utah, yesterday.
We have great support from the Republican Party, tremendous support.
It's never been this unified before, ever, ever.
In the fake impeachment, we had 196 to nothing Republican support, and we had 52 and a half to a half in the Senate.
Who was the half?
I can't imagine.
I can't.
But he was very good today, I have to tell you.
Now I'm happy.
Thank you, Mitt.
Thank you.
Okay, that's a little bit funny.
By the way, some of this seems to be having a little bit of an effect in state polls.
There are a couple of new polls out today from ABC News that show Trump up slightly in Arizona, which would be a move.
That'd be a real move in the polls for Trump.
Shows him up 49-48 over Joe Biden in Arizona.
It also shows him up 51-47 over Joe Biden in Florida, which puts Trump much closer toward a path to re-election.
I think everybody was sort of assuming that Arizona had escaped Trump come 2020's election.
Meanwhile, the late night hosts are winding.
You can always tell where the emotional center of the Democratic Party base is simply by looking at the late night hosts who are aghast that Republicans would move forward with a Republican nominee when the president is a Republican and the Senate is Republican.
Here are a bunch of late night hosts pretending to be comedians but actually just being essentially slightly more or maybe slightly less humorous than the hosts on MSNBC.
I get that the hypocrisy is baked in.
Pointing it out won't change their minds.
It's like telling a middle school bully, give me a wedgie, we'll make your parents get back together.
He knows that.
He just wants to give you that wedgie.
It's truly amazing how Mitch McConnell's rules keep changing.
First it was, oh, we can't nominate a Supreme Court justice during an election year.
And then it's like, oh, asterisks, that rule doesn't apply when we have the White House, meh.
Less than two hours after we learned of Ginsburg's death, we heard from Senate Majority Leader and neutered dog sack, Mitch McConnell.
Wow, he called him a neutered dog sack, guys, because he looks like testicles.
Wow.
Can you hear the humoring?
Can you hear the comedying?
Now, one of the questions here has always been, why the hue and cry?
I mean, seriously, why the insane response to what is a perfectly normal operation of government?
Namely, a seat comes open, the president nominates, the Senate gets to vote on the nomination or not vote on the nomination as it sees fit.
But the level of ire over this is so insane.
It can only be explicable if you recognize that for many Democrats, for many Democrats, including purportedly religious Democrats, politics is the religion.
This is the idol.
This is the golden calf.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not merely a powerful figure who is worthy of emulation in many views of leftists.
She's a godlike figure.
This is why you saw people screaming, crying to the skies.
This is why you see people gnashing their teeth, rending their garments, Dowsing themselves in ash, sitting outside the walls of the Supreme Court.
I mean, this is the reaction, and it is completely outsized.
Now, again, I remember when Justice Antonin Scalia died, and everybody was very upset about this.
I mean, this happened in the middle of the 2016 election, and Scalia was a far more weighty justice than Ginsburg was.
To put this in context, 100 years from now, no one is gonna remember a single decision that Ginsburg wrote.
You can't name a single decision that Ginsburg wrote right now.
Okay, Ginsburg was not an extraordinarily weighty justice.
Her career was weighty because of the power of women to rise to the top ranks of American law.
Although Sandra Day O'Connor had already been on the Supreme Court for years by the time that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got there.
So this notion that her confirmation to the Supreme Court acted as a sort of push forward for women generally was not true.
I mean, that supposed glass ceiling had already been broken.
That's not to demean her life, but her judicial legacy is really non-existent.
She does not have tons of judicial legacy outside of the realm of civil procedure where she was a purported expert.
Scalia was a much more consequential justice whose decisions will still be read a hundred years from now.
Republicans were upset about it.
Republicans did not go into the apoplexy of mourning and rage that you saw over Ginsburg.
They didn't.
It wasn't a thing that happened.
I remember because I was there.
But Democrats are pulling out all the stops here.
They're treating this as though a saint has passed away.
Like an actual religious saint.
Not like she's a saintly person.
Like an actual religious saint has passed away.
Which means that they are now going to react to Republicans attempting to fill that seat with outsized outrage and insane overreaction.
Chuck Schumer yesterday actually blocked an intelligence hearing, a counterintelligence hearing.
So there was a counterintelligence hearing that was supposed to start.
It was supposed to be about election threats.
Democrats have been claiming for years that Republicans are going soft on election threats.
How much do Democrats care about threats to the integrity of American elections?
They care so little that they were willing to put off the hearing in a fit of sheer pique at the fact that Republicans were going to vote on whoever Trump nominates.
Here was Chuck Schumer blocking an intelligence hearing yesterday.
On behalf of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, that that meeting occurred during today's session of the Senate.
Is there objection?
Observing the right to object.
Democratic leader.
Reserving the right to object because the Senate Republicans have no respect for the institution.
We won't have business as usual here in the Senate.
I object.
I object.
I object that we're not going to do business at all.
We're going to stop business as usual because Republicans have no respect for the institution.
We don't do the things the Senate is supposed to do from now on.
I mean, this was the hallmark, by the way, of Chuck Schumer's response yesterday.
We love the Senate so much that we are going to stop all business in the Senate and also wreck the institution of the Senate.
Which suggests to me you don't love the Senate all that much.
And as I've been saying for the past several days, for Democrats, they like the Senate when it is a tool of power on their behalf.
They do not like the Senate when it is not a tool of power on their behalf.
They like the filibuster when it's a tool of power on their behalf.
They don't like it when it is not a tool of power on their behalf.
They love the Supreme Court when it is cramming down same-sex marriage on the entire country.
In direct contravention to both the Constitution of the United States and state laws all over the country, they don't like it so much when the Supreme Court is rejecting their particular arguments on the constitutionality of rescinding DACA, for example.
In other words, the institutions are only good when they do what they want them to do, which is the sign that you have no institutional allegiance at all.
You don't care about the institution.
What you care about is the power, and everybody knows it, which is one of the reasons why Republicans are unwilling to cut a deal with Democrats In order to come to some sort of conclusion here, because why would you trust anybody who hates the institution so much they are willing to wreck it in the first place?
I mean, here was Chuck Schumer yesterday, again reiterating this thing.
They're ruining the institution of the Senate.
They're ruining it.
They're ruining it so much that I would like to get rid of the filibuster, which has been around and in use since 1837, and I want to add states to the Senate willy-nilly with Democratic senators.
That's how much I love the Senate.
All I want to do is completely skew it.
Leader McConnell's actions may now very well destroy the institution of the Senate.
If Leader McConnell presses forward, The Republican majority will have stolen two Supreme Court seats, four years apart.
Leader McConnell has basically decided the rules don't apply to Republicans, even their own rules.
It's just brute political force.
Okay, first of all, let's point something out.
If Chuck Schumer were in charge of the Senate in 2016, he would have rammed through Merrick Garland.
He wouldn't have waited.
Let's stop pretending that he's going to abide by the so-called McConnell rule.
And McConnell, by the way, did say at the time that when the parties are not the same for the president and the Senate, that that makes a difference in this calculation.
But again, the notion that the Democrats are the great Senate defenders, the institutional defenders, beggars the imagination.
It's truly wild.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, let us talk about the fact that you're overpaying for your cell phone bill.
And you are, okay?
That's just a fact.
You're paying too much money.
The reason you're paying too much money, probably you're paying for that unlimited data, and you're probably not using unlimited data, because by definition it's unlimited, and you cannot use unlimited data.
You probably don't need it.
What you actually need is a program from Pure Talk.
Pure Talk will give you the exact same coverage, the same towers, the same bars, but it will cost you half.
No contract, no excessive fees.
You're gonna save yourself a ton of money.
Right now, enjoy a limited talk, text, and two gigs of data, all for just 20 bucks a month.
The average person is saving $400 a year on their wireless bill.
So, grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro.
When you do, you'll save 250 bucks off any iPhone, including the new iPhone SE.
Again, that is pound 250, say keyword Ben Shapiro.
Pure Talk USA, simply smarter wireless.
Go check them out right now.
Why would you spend too much on your cell phone bill when you literally do not have to?
There is no reason to do it at all.
You can get the same coverage, again, same bars, same towers, but it'll cost you half the money.
When you switch over to Pure Talk USA, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro, and when you do, you save 250 bucks off any iPhone, including that new iPhone SE.
Pure Talk USA, saving you time and saving you money.
Go check them out right now.
So the Democrats continue to push forward this notion that they are deeply, deeply upset With the very basic constitutional function of filling a seat.
Pete Buttigieg, who apparently knows nothing about how the Constitution works or how voting works.
He tweeted out, we're in danger of a majority of justices on the Supreme Court being chosen by presidents who didn't even get the majority of the popular vote.
Any way you look at it, we're getting less democratic by the day.
Okay, so note, if you're talking about majority of the popular vote, Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.
JFK did not win a majority of the popular vote.
Woodrow Wilson did not win a majority of the popular vote.
They all got to appoint justices.
In fact, of the Democratic presidents since the turn of the 20th century, Democratic presidents who have not won the popular vote have appointed some 11 justices to the Supreme Court during that time.
Also, if the great problem here is that we are in danger of justices being chosen by popular minorities, you know who was okay with that?
The founders.
You know how I know they were okay with it?
Because they did not give the function of judicial confirmation to the House of Representatives, which is staffed by population.
They gave it to the Senate, which is fundamentally not based on popular representation.
If they had actually wanted the function of confirming justices to be put in the hands of the popular assembly, they would have put it in the House.
They didn't.
They put it in the Senate.
So thank you, Pete Buttigieg, for yet another example of your complete ignorance about how constitutional law works.
That's really exciting stuff.
But again, what this really goes back to more than anything is the levels of idolatry that Democrats have for politics.
Because if you believe that you are this far short of utopia, utopia is ever-receding, of course, because you never reach it.
But if you are this far short of utopia and doing your part and fulfilling your religious obligation, and then you have a setback, well, that's a day of mourning.
That's like in the Jewish calendar Tisha B'Av.
It's like the destruction of the temple.
And I've never seen anything made more clear than this.
There's a video from a congregation, a Reform congregation in New Jersey.
I guess it's called Temple Ner Tamid.
Now let me make clear my opinion of Reform Judaism.
I think that Reform Judaism as currently constituted has almost literally nothing to do with traditional Judaism in any way.
Except that occasionally Reform Judaism suggests that you wear some of the same funny accoutrements as people who are Orthodox.
But Reform Judaism does not strictly abide by any form of halakha, doesn't abide by Jewish law, it has nothing to do with Jewish philosophy.
It really is just progressivism masquerading as religion.
But it's not masquerading as religion, it is progressivism as the religion.
It's not progressivism pretending to be religion, even.
It is progressivism is the religion, and adherence to progressivism must conquer all.
If you want to make your way into heaven, Then what you have to do is declare your fealty to progressivism and progressive icons, progressive saints.
You have to do your penance to progressivism.
I've never seen anything made more clear that the substitution of progressivism for Judaism, which, by the way, has been ongoing in the Jewish community for an extremely long time.
There's a vast divide between how Orthodox Jews vote, for example, and the rest of the Jewish community.
Orthodox Jews tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican because it turns out that biblical values tend to be a lot more socially conservative and a lot more pro-Israel.
But progressive Jews, meaning Jews who by and large do not believe very much in Jewish religion, they kind of like the cultural Judaism aspect, they like the bagels, they like the lox, they like the matzo balls.
Every so often they like to go to synagogue, mainly so they can hear people sing for like an hour and a half and then they break on Yom Kippur for lunch.
That is not Judaism as a religion.
In fact, it has nothing to do with Judaism as a religion.
It is basically just some sort of cultural solidarity unlinked in any serious way to underlying Jewish values or Jewish philosophy.
Progressivism is the religion.
And then you just slap a little bit of Jewish kind of flavoring on top.
You slap a little bit of matzo ball soup and some schmaltz on top.
And then you're like, oh, well, I guess this is Judaism now.
That's what Reform Judaism has become.
Even more Reconstructionist Judaism.
Conservative Judaism doesn't really exist anymore.
Conservative, like, old-style Jewish theological seminary Judaism.
It's broken down into modern Orthodox and then into Reform and Reconstructionist.
The reason I bring this up is because this is the greatest example of substitution of progressivism for religion I have ever seen.
So this temple, Ner Tamid, again, it is a Reform synagogue in New Jersey.
The rabbi of the congregation gets up in the aftermath of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death.
And his name is Mark Katz.
He stands alongside a cantor named Meredith Greenberg, and they decide to do the Haftorah.
So the Haftorah, for folks, again, who are not versed in Jewish ritual, the Haftorah is a segment that you read after the Torah reading.
So every Saturday, and on holidays, you read a section of the Torah.
You've heard me on this show before do full-on analyses of the Torah portion of the week.
So you read a section of the Torah, and then, because for a long time, particularly during the Roman period, Jews were barred from reading from the Torah, the Jews added a Haftorah, meaning that they added a segment from the Nevi'im, from the prophets, from the writings of the prophets.
And that was supposed to substitute sort of for the Torah reading, and then eventually, when the Torah was allowed to be read again, you would read the Torah reading, and then you would read a section from the prophets.
Okay, so the Haftorah has its own special sort of cancellation, it has its own sort of trope, And Trump are sort of the way you sing it.
So this temple decided.
It's beyond blasphemy what this is.
They decided that they were going to substitute for the words of the prophets, instead of a segment from Isaiah or a segment from Ezekiel or a segment from the book of Samuel or something, they were going to substitute the writings of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
A woman whose most prominent stances were fairly obviously not in favor of Judaism.
She was a very strong cultural Jew, was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and that's wonderful and fine.
But Ruth Bader Ginsburg's rulings from the bench were largely in favor of abortion on demand and restrictions on religion via the hand of government.
If you're going to talk about her in a religious context, that's where she was.
So they decide that they are going to read The Ahav Torah, right?
They're literally going to take the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, substitute them for the words of the prophets, and then sing them to the same tunes you would sing the actual Jewish prophets in a synagogue.
Okay, this is not only blasphemous, it is a perfect, a perfect crystallization of the substitution of progressivism for religion.
It's especially true in the Jewish community.
Unfortunately, it has also happened in a wide variety of other communities, ranging from the Catholic to the Protestant.
It is obviously most pronounced in the Jewish community, and by far, it is not close.
Okay, so here is what this sounded like.
When I saw this, I couldn't believe it.
I honestly couldn't believe it.
I thought it was a parody.
I thought it was something from Saturday Night Live.
It is so bizarre and insane on every level, but This is a thing that happened.
This is a thing that happened because when politics is your golden calf, when you don't really believe in God, when what you really believe in is the power of the collective to shape the imagination, then this is what you end up with.
So here are people donning the garb of Judaism in order to preach the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
All right, here we go.
I tell all students, if you are going to be a lawyer and just practice your profession, you have a skill.
Very much like a plumber.
But if you want to be a true professional, you will do something outside yourself.
Something that makes life a little better for people less fortunate than you.
OK, a few things here.
Gross. I mean, truly gross.
Using the trappings and the halachic accoutrements to promote the verbiage of Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the deus inshul is unbelievable levels of golden calf idolatry.
I mean, really, like, top-notch stuff right there on Rosh Hashanah.
Really, really well done right there.
Okay, and then beyond all of that, I challenge you to recite back to me that quote.
Was that anything nearly as memorable as anything from, you know, the Book of Samuel?
Either one or two?
Was that anything remotely memorable in any way?
But these are the words of the prophets.
I mean, this is literally what this doof said.
This doof said, he said that she was a modern day prophet.
She was a modern day prophet.
And so he decided to substitute her words for those of, you know, actual prophets.
Well, I mean, obviously she was not a modern-day prophet.
She was just a political leftist.
That doesn't mean you're a modern-day prophet.
What is the prophecy exactly?
I mean, one of the things prophets are supposed to do is have an accurate depiction of the future.
I mean, I can say that she obviously would have liked to sit on the court until a Democrat was president.
So, I mean, when we're talking about prophecy, not so much prophecy happening there, but this was not rare in the Jewish community.
I'm going to get some more examples of this in one second, because again, the substitution of progressivism for religion, it is a religion.
Progressivism is a religion in which there are saints and sinners, in which forgiveness is never truly earned.
You're always held to the fire, no matter what.
I'd say progressivism in many ways is more like a cult than a religion even.
At least in religion, there comes a point where once you've repented, you are cleansed of your sin.
In progressivism, you're never cleansed of your sin.
Your sin can always be brought back up to you and thus used as a cudgel in order to get you to do more progressive things.
That is the chief aspect of progressivism that is truly mortifying.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, If you've been listening to the show for a while, you probably heard me talk about my Helix Sleep Mattress.
It's fantastic, right?
I mean, I basically would not sleep were it not for the quality of my personalized Helix Sleep Mattress.
Well, you know what?
Helix has now gone beyond the bedroom.
They've started making sofas.
They launched a new company called Allform.
They are making premium, customizable sofas and chairs shipped directly to your door.
So, what makes an all-form sofa really cool?
Well, for starters, it's the easiest way you can customize a sofa using premium materials and at a fraction of the cost of traditional stores.
You can pick your fabric.
It is spill-stain, scratch-resistant, the sofa color, the color of the legs, sofa size, shape.
Make sure it's perfect for you and your home.
They've got armchairs and loveseats all the way up to an eight-seat sectional, so there's something for everyone.
You can always start small and buy more seats later on if you want your all-form sofa to grow and change with you when you move.
We've got an all-form sofa at home.
It is fantastic.
It is durable, which I really care about since my kids wreck everything.
All-form sofas are delivered directly to your home with fast, free shipping.
In the past, if you wanted to order a sofa, it could take weeks or months to assemble.
to arrive and then you'd have to have somebody assemble it in your home.
Well, this takes just three to seven days to arrive in the mail.
You can assemble it yourself in a few minutes with no tools needed.
I've got an Allform sofa.
I picked out the three seat sofa with chaise and the sand color with espresso legs.
It is beautiful.
And again, it is extremely durable.
Allform is offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash, but again, 20%.
Again, 20% off all orders at allform.com slash Ben.
They also have a forever warranty, literally forever, and you get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it.
So you've got nothing to lose except your discomfort.
Go check them out, allform.com slash Ben.
So unfortunately, this particular synagogue, this Reform Synagogue in New Jersey, was not the only one that participated in this sort of insanity.
Apparently, at Central Synagogue, a large Reform congregation in Manhattan, Rabbi Angela Buckdahl, who's also a cancer, sang a Hebrew version of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah along a slideshow of photos of Ginsburg.
By the way, there's nothing quite like honoring Rosh Hashanah by showing slideshows on Rosh Hashanah.
And in the process, also elevating Ruth Bader Ginsburg to an Oscar tribute.
Really stellar stuff right there.
Rabbi Joshua Stanton of East End Temple, this is Forward.com, reporting.
Another Reformed congregation in Lower Manhattan heard the news minutes after closing the synagogue's Rosh Hashanah livestream on Friday night.
Later that evening, he joined an impromptu Zoom call where about 30 congregants remembered the justice as an inspiration and exemplar.
Attorneys on the call said they had modeled their careers after Herr Stanton recalled.
Others worried aloud about the sacred role, sacred!
The court plays in our democracy.
Sacred.
It is not a sacred role.
It is a check and balance.
It is not a sacred role.
Sacred means ordained by God.
Okay?
That is not a sacred role.
It can be a cherished role.
It can be an important role.
It is not a sacred role.
The substitution of progressivism for religion is one of the great and awful developments of the 20th century.
And it is awful.
It is absolutely terrible.
Using, again, Rosh Hashanah, which is one of the high holy days in the Jewish calendar, in order to forward progressivism and to elevate Ruth Bader Ginsburg into the sort of high echelon of the prophets is pretty incredible stuff.
This is not relegated, by the way, to the Jewish community.
It is not.
The way that progressivism views religion is that, like everything else, for progressives, religion is a tool.
And it really is more about the trappings of religion so that you can pretend that you are allied with the religious rather than it is about the actual doctrines of the religion.
In fact, anybody who says that they are in favor of the doctrines of their religion is anti-progressivism and is therefore some sort of blasphemer.
Right?
If you're a religious Jew, there is nobody that Reform Jews are more angry at than religious Jews.
I mean, seriously, Reform Jews, when they look at religious Jews who take the Torah seriously and take Jewish law seriously, not to get in sort of the dirty business of the Jewish community, the antipathy that Reform Judaism holds for Orthodox Judaism is extraordinary.
And the same thing is true in a lot of Christian communities.
Progressive Christians feel a lot of antipathy for Evangelical Christians.
Progressive Catholics feel an extraordinary level of antipathy for religious Catholics, for more Orthodox Catholics.
See, for progressives, religion is supposed to be about the trappings.
It's not supposed to be about the doctrine.
If you take the doctrine seriously, you got a problem.
Because the doctrine could be in direct conflict with the progressive doctrine.
And if those two are in conflict, the progressive doctrine, the golden calf, and the actual religion, then the religion has to be torn down.
And you can see this most obviously in the way that Democrats are preparing to treat Amy Comey Barrett.
So Amy Comey Barrett, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge, She is an Orthodox Catholic, has described herself that way.
She has seven children.
Five of them are natural born, two of them are adopted from Haiti.
By all accounts has led a pretty model, stellar life.
Clerked for Justice Scalia, taught at University of Notre Dame Law School.
Is really a great candidate in a variety of ways, and seems like a really good person.
She seems like a really good person.
But she is called into question.
Because why?
According to progressives, if you refuse to follow the sacred code of Roe vs. Wade, or if you refuse to signify your allegiance to the sacred code of Roe vs. Wade, and if you have signified that you actually believe in God or you believe in the doctrine of your particular faith, this means you are unqualified for the court.
Now let's be straight about this.
You can be an excellent Catholic and still recognize the limitations of your job.
Antonin Scalia was a very, very devout Catholic.
He still recognized the limitations of his job.
He did not use his Catholicism as a battering ram, for example, against the death penalty.
So the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty, last I checked.
Antonin Scalia did not say that it is unconstitutional to pursue the death penalty.
He understood the limitations of his job.
His idea was that if I do my job properly as a justice on the Supreme Court, I'm not here to make my doctrine law.
If I do my job properly, then I have forwarded the kingdom of God by both modeling good behavior and also by forwarding the power and liberty of the United States of America, where people get to make their own decisions.
Religious people, they're not all theocrats.
See, for progressives, the substitution of progressivism for religion means that there's a sort of supersession theology.
Supersession theology is the idea that You are the new religious.
You are the new chosen.
So for many progressives, they are the new chosen.
And that means that they have to get rid of the old chosen.
The old chosen would be any form of any traditional religion.
And so what that means is that if you are a traditionally religious person, we have to cast you as a theocrat because progressivism is in direct opposition to quote-unquote theocracy.
So instead, Antonin Scalia becomes a theocrat.
He can't simultaneously be a good Catholic and also a good justice.
And you've seen the Democrats already start to say this sort of stuff about Amy Coney Barrett.
This is going all the way back to 2017.
So in 2017, Dianne Feinstein overtly said to Amy Coney Barrett, who was being, at that point, heard for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Feinstein chided her for being Catholic, saying, the dogma lives loudly in you.
Now again, if you're a Catholic, or if you're an Orthodox Jew, or if you're a religious Muslim, I think it is perfectly plausible, and in fact, the history of humanity shows, And that you can be any of these things and also understand the limitations of your job and what you are supposed to do.
I mean, last I checked, this is literally part of the New Testament Rendered to Caesar section, okay?
And I'm not Christian.
Under Judaism, that would be called Dina Demalkhusa Dina, meaning the law of the land is the law.
And so this has been a long time religious doctrine.
But for people who are anti-religious or a-religious, their perspective on religion is that religion dictates not only every aspect of your life, but also dictates that you cram down your religion on everybody else.
Which is not something that religion necessarily dictates.
In any case, here is Dianne Feinstein, progressive figure, basically suggesting that Amy Comey Barrett cannot be a good justice because she's a Catholic.
I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma.
The law is totally different.
And I think in your case, Professor, When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.
And therefore, she could not be a good justice, right?
She couldn't be a good judge because the dogma lived loudly in Amy Comey Barrett.
Dick Durbin, Did the same thing.
He asked Amy Comey Barrett about being an Orthodox Catholic.
What's your definition of an Orthodox Catholic?
Now, again, it is very funny.
Hugh Hewitt, who is a friend and radio host, he pointed out online that Democrats have taken a pretty anti-Catholic line throughout their questioning of people like Amy Comey Barrett.
They did the same thing with Justice Scalia.
The implication, of course, is that if you're a religious Catholic, then you're a theocrat.
And Kevin Cruz, who is a liberal professor, I believe, at Princeton, if that's correct, Kevin Cruz tweeted back, well, you know, look how many Catholics have been in positions of power in the Democratic Party.
I mean, their last three vice presidential nominees were Catholics.
Most of the Catholics who are in Congress are Democrats.
OK, that may very well be true.
And there are Jews on the Supreme Court, too.
None of them are Orthodox and none of them actually practice the doctrine of Judaism outside the court in any serious way.
Just because you have people... I mean, Joe Biden has been refused communion for his position on abortion by particular local churches.
Nancy Pelosi, same deal.
In other words, what religion is designed to do in this iteration is to be sort of a cultural thing.
Like, you know, you go out on Sunday nights and you get Chinese food and then on Monday nights, you go to mass and you say a few words and then you go back home and then you talk about how abortion is wonderful.
For a lot of religious people in the country, that is not how they view That is not how they view what religion ought to be.
And so here is Dick Durbin questioning Amy Comey Barrett about orthodox Catholicism as though orthodox Catholicism is in direct contravention of sort of liberal values and that there's something bad about being an orthodox Catholic that makes her inherently intolerant.
The only true form of Catholicism that we should be seeking to emulate is the kind where you mumble a few words in Latin every so often and then you go out at night and do exactly whatever the damn well hell you please.
You use a term in that article, or you both use a term in that article, I've never seen before.
You refer to orthodox Catholics.
What's an orthodox Catholic?
Um, as I recall, that term, um, we said something like, for lack of a better term, we're using the term orthodox Catholic, and there was a long footnote saying, you know, that that was an imperfect term.
Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?
I am a Catholic, Senator DeDurbin.
I don't, well, Orthodox Catholic, we kind of, as I said in that article, we just kind of use that as a proxy.
It is not to my knowledge, you know, a term Curlean use, but if you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic, I am.
Okay, so again, the fact that you have to be questioned about being a faithful Catholic is really quite crazy.
I mean, I thought this went out with JFK, but again, JFK, I guess, would not have been considered an Orthodox Catholic, is the idea.
So the idea is that you're an anti-Catholic bigot if you ask a Democrat about their Catholicism, but if you ask an Orthodox Catholic about their Catholicism, it's not anti-Catholic bigotry whatsoever.
By the way, both Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein both defended themselves on charges of anti-Catholic bigotry over all of this stuff way back in 2017.
They said it's completely fair.
They said it's completely fair to go after people for their Catholicism.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, as we slowly adjust to a new normal, we need to be smart about how we do business.
Luckily, there are stamps.com to make things easier.
Thousands of small business owners have discovered the benefits of stamps.com in recent months.
They've been able to keep their businesses running, avoid the crowds at the post office, all from their own computers.
With stamps.com, you can print postage on demand, you can avoid going to the post office, and you will save money with discounted rates you can't even get at the post office.
Stamps.com also offers UPS services with discounts up to 62%, no residential surcharges.
Here at Daily Wire, we've been using Stamps.com since 2017.
We don't waste our time and we don't waste our money.
They bring all the mailing and shipping services you might need directly to your computer in the comfort of your home or office.
Whether you're a small business sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or just working from home and need to mail stuff, Stamps.com can handle all of it with ease.
It's a no-brainer.
It really is.
They also offer UPS services with discounts up to 62%.
No residential surcharges right now.
My listeners get a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
No long-term commitment.
If you're just wasting money and time, there's really... Re-evaluate yourself.
Re-evaluate your company.
We at Dailyware have been using Stamps.com for years.
We've saved a lot of money.
Head on over to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
Again, that is stamps.com, enter code Shapiro to get started.
Okay, so again, Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin, they have actually defended this in the past, suggesting, of course, that what they were doing was asking legitimate questions about whether you can be a good Catholic and still be on some of the nation's highest courts.
And we are seeing Maisie Hirono do the same thing.
She's attacked judicial nominees for their faith before.
Asked if her religious view should be off-limits, according to CNN.
Senator Hirono said no.
She said no, they absolutely should not.
And we have now seen two, count them, two articles, one from Newsweek and one from Reuters, suggesting that because Judge Amy Coney Barrett was part of a self-described charismatic Christian community called People of Praise, this means that she is a character from The Handmaid's Tale.
I'm not kidding.
This is what the argument is.
So the argument is, she is such a handmaid, and she is of whatever her husband's name is, she's a handmaid, and she's such a handmaid that she serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, I've read that book.
I don't remember any of the women who were being used as vessels for childbearing being members of some of the nation's highest courts or being nominated for the Supreme Court, but forgive me if I forget that part of that stupid book.
And the book is indeed incredibly stupid.
Again, truly religious people have to be excoriated by the left.
True religion, according to the left, is reading Ruth Bader Ginsburg from the pulpit on Rosh Hashanah.
Let me just say, if you are substituting politics for your religion, you're not talking about eternal values.
You're not talking about living a deep and fulfilling life.
Because every time something does not go your way on this moral coil in the world of politics, it becomes a deep threat to your own worldview.
It ratchets things up.
One of the great developments in human history was in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.
There were a bunch of religious wars between Catholic countries and Protestant countries and Protestant rebellions and Catholic leaders and all of this.
And the Treaty of Westphalia essentially said that there was going to be much, much more religious tolerance in Europe.
And it ended a lot of the religious warfare in Europe for centuries.
Warfare came out in other ways, obviously, but religious warfare was basically put on the back burner because everybody sort of said, OK, we're going to have to acknowledge that we exist.
Religious warfare is truly awful, as you can see in the Muslim world between Shia and Sunni.
It's really bad, religious warfare.
Turning politics into religion is not going to make things better.
It's going to make it a lot worse.
And this is the direction we have moved.
Human beings have a religious need.
One of the great developments in civilizational history is the recognition that social fabric built through religion could be separate from what the government is supposed to do.
Reading back into what the government is supposed to do, all of the religious things that you want, is a form of theocracy, but that theocracy these days is not coming from the right.
It is coming almost entirely from the political left in this country.
And it's really ugly, and it's really bad for the country, and it's really bad for religion, by the way, which has become completely secondary.
The Golden Calf, remember, was not supposed to be next to God.
It was an idol.
It was supposed to be a replacement for.
And that's what progressivism, for many folks, has become.
Okay, meanwhile, stupidest controversy of the day yesterday.
So, a Wells Fargo CEO, quote-unquote, ruffled feathers.
Why?
Well, his name is Charles Scharf.
He exasperated some black employees in a Zoom meeting this summer when he reiterated the bank has trouble reaching diversity goals because there were not enough qualified minority talents, according to two participants.
He made the assertion in a company-wide memo June 18th that announced diversity initiatives as nationwide protests broke out following the death of George Floyd.
While it might sound like an excuse, the unfortunate reality is that there's a very limited pool of black talent to recruit from, Scharf said in the memo.
Sharf spent more time listening than speaking during the 90-minute call which he initiated and has not been previously reported.
His comments about black talent rubbed some attendees the wrong way, according to the two employees who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Several black senior executives across corporate America said they're frustrated by claims of a talent shortage and called the refrain a major reason companies have struggled to add racial and ethnic diversity to leadership ranks despite stated intentions to do so.
According to Ken Bacon, a former mortgage industry executive who's on the board of Comcast, Ally Financial Corp, and WealthTower, He said he was shocked and puzzled by Sharf's comments.
He said, if people say they can't find the talent, they either aren't looking hard enough or they don't want to find it.
Okay, so this happens to be a statistical lie.
It happens to be a statistical lie that there are people of every particular racial group who exist in direct proportion to their population who are available for each particular job.
It happens not to be true.
Okay, it's true in nearly every industry.
In the NBA, Jews are really underrepresented.
Why?
Not a lot of qualified Jews for the NBA.
That's just the way it works.
Hey, and there are not a lot of qualified black applicants for Wells Fargo.
That is not because of innate ability.
That is because of shortcomings in familial upbringing.
It is because of shortcomings in the education system.
But it remains a fact.
And that is not on Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo doesn't have to just go hire a random black person in order to meet a diversity quota because they are a company that has to run at a profit and has to fulfill job requirements.
The willingness to completely—all of these articles about this Wallace Fargo CEO, they quote somebody who's like, you know, it's just insulting he would say something like that.
It's just not true he would say something like that.
There's only one problem.
At no point do they provide statistical evidence that black recruits are available in wide numbers sufficient to their percentage of the population at large.
Why don't they provide those numbers?
Because those numbers don't exist.
I'll get into it in just one second, but this goes to a lot of the sort of critical race theory nonsense that we are being treated to these days.
A lot of the anti-racism nonsense we're being treated to these days.
Again, the principal idea of anti-racism is put forward by Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi, which has now infused so many of our corporations, is that any policy that does not result in an equal outcome by group is a racist policy that must be done away with.
What if there are other confounding factors?
Anti-racist policy just ignores them.
This is a perfect example of that.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about how sometimes you need a better employee.
Sometimes you do.
So, for example, every morning, speaking of my Judaism, every morning I study with a rabbi.
Let's call him Rabbi Levy.
And let's say he's fantastic.
He's great.
There's only one problem.
Every morning, he wants to chat about our lives until we never get any actual learning done.
Well, at that point, I might want to go to ZipRecruiter and find myself a rabbi who's actually going to learn Mishnah with me instead of chatting about current events.
I mean, just putting that out there, Rabbi Levi.
And it's true for our Daily Wire employees here, too.
Hey, the fact is that we have lots of Daily Wire employees who are fantastic because they replaced ones who are not so good via ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter will send your job to over 100 of the web's leading job sites.
They don't stop there.
With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job.
ZipRecruiter makes hiring efficient and effective with features like screening questions to filter candidates in an all-in-one dashboard where you can review and rate your candidates.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
Right now, to try ZipRecruiter for free, my listeners can go to ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
If you're looking for a great employee, if you're looking for a great employer, ZipRecruiter is where they all connect.
Go do it.
We use it at DailyWire ourselves.
Go check them out right now.
As part of our DailyWire audience, there are a number of ways to take in the podcast, by the way.
You can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or another podcast app.
You may also watch our podcast on YouTube, Facebook, or over at DailyWire.com.
But here's the bottom line.
We are now making our content available to you wherever you watch or listen.
Daily Wire members can enjoy our shows on Apple TV and Roku, so members can enjoy all of the visual elements of this podcast and our other shows on your big screen, either live or on demand.
Find The Daily Wire on Apple TV or Roku and download today.
You have to be an Insider member to watch live.
So, head on over to dailywire.com slash Shapiro.
Use code WATCH at checkout to get 15% off your membership purchase.
This deal won't last long.
Act fast if you want live shows on your big screen, plus the one-of-a-kind, highly coveted Leftist Steers Tumblr.
Again, that is dailywire.com slash Shapiro to get 15% off with code WATCH.
Download the Daily Wire on your Apple TV and Roku today.
You are listening to the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Alrighty, so again, there's this trend in American thought that is deeply disturbing and incredibly stupid, which is that if there is any policy and it results in a disparity, it's because discrimination took place.
So this Wells Fargo CEO is now under fire, as I've been mentioning, for suggesting on a phone call back in June, right?
It is now, last I checked, September.
So everybody sort of waited, lurking in the wilderness to spring this political trap on the Wells Fargo CEO.
It trended number one on Twitter yesterday because he said there weren't enough qualified black applicants to work at Wells Fargo sufficient to staff them according to percentage of the population.
Because black Americans represent about 13% of the population, far lower percentage of Wells Fargo employees.
And people are like, that's unfair!
That's terrible!
There's only one problem.
He happens to be correct.
Now, the media will always obscure this because, again, they wish to attribute all disparities to discrimination.
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in his book, Disparities and Discrimination, this is untrue.
And very often, the media will acknowledge it's untrue.
They'll bury it in paragraph 17 of a piece, but they will acknowledge that it is untrue that an equal number of qualified applicants by percentage of population are available.
So, for example, February 2016, piece in the New York Times, why tech degrees are not putting more blacks and Hispanics into tech jobs. Technology companies employ strikingly few black and Hispanic workers. They blame the recruitment pipeline, saying there aren't enough of them graduating with relevant degrees and applying for tech jobs. Yet the data show there are many more black and Hispanic students majoring in computer science and engineering than work in tech jobs.
So why aren't they being hired?
Those who enter the candidate pipeline fall out somewhere along the way.
And the culture and recruiting methods of tech companies seem to have a lot to do with it.
The pipeline problem is not a myth.
Black and Hispanic students are underrepresented in computer science and engineering programs relative to their share of the population, while Asian students are overrepresented.
Yet the pipeline is still more fruitful than tech companies make it out to be.
Among young computer science and engineering grads with a bachelor's or advanced degrees, 57% are white, 26% are Asian, 8% are Hispanic, 6% are black, according to the American Community Survey data.
At the top 25 undergrad programs, nearly 9% of graduates are underrepresented minorities, according to the Education Department data.
But technical workers at Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter, according to the company's diversity records, are on average 56% white, 37% Asian, 3% Hispanic, and 1% black.
What?
One issue is that black and Hispanic computer science and engineering grads are less likely than white and Asian ones to go into tech jobs.
Well, wouldn't that be one of the problems?
10% of black computer science and engineering grads have office support jobs, including administrative support and accounting jobs, compared with 5% of white graduates and 3% of Asians.
It also happens to be that you are talking about the top tech companies in America.
I have relatives who work for some of these companies.
And let me tell you, the screening procedures for getting into Google are extraordinary.
To be an employee at Google, you gotta go through a withering barrage of testing.
And not everybody's gonna get through.
The attempt to suggest that all policy is due to some systemic racism, when it's pretty obviously due to personal choice and the consequences thereof, It is really ugly and makes for bad public policy, and it's really stupid.
Here is some information from Georgetown University.
Georgetown University did a full study of black American college majors and earnings.
It turns out that the number of people who are majoring in, that among black Americans, STEM degrees are not in the top 10.
They're not in the top 10 for bachelor's degrees.
Computer and information systems like 14% is computer and information systems.
That's like the highest.
Health and medical administration services, 21%.
Human services and community organization, 20%.
Social work, 19%.
Public administration, 17%.
Criminal justice and fire protection, 15%.
I believe that this same study showed that STEM degrees, it was like 7% of black Americans major in the STEM field.
Well, that's gonna have some pretty significant ramifications for how many of them end up actually working at Wells Fargo or at Google.
By the way, you know what's not listed among these top 10?
Would be anything having to do with finance.
Again, the rest of the top 10 is sociology, computer and information systems, human resources and personnel management, interdisciplinary social sciences, and pre-law and legal studies.
As it turns out, the industries most likely to have high earnings, the majors that are most likely to have high earnings for black Americans, tend to be the majors that are least taken by black Americans.
The top earning industries are Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Civil Engineering, Nursing, General Engineering and Computer Science.
Those industries, I don't think a single one of those majors actually is listed in the top 10 that black Americans tend to take.
That's going to make a difference in terms of earnings.
But you see, when we are attempting to forward a lie, and the lie is that America is racist, and the proof that America is racist is in disparity, then you have to ignore actual statistics in many of these cases.
Now, there is good news, which is that this philosophy is now being fought back on by the Trump administration.
So yesterday, the president signed a full executive order abolishing critical race theory from the federal government, the military, and all federal contractors.
The federal contractors is a big one because it means private companies that contract with the federal government can no longer do the Ibram X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo, diversity training, re-education, malice struggle sessions.
Under the executive order, the president explains our nation was founded on the ideal that all men are created equal and denounces critical race theories, pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country.
This is according to Christopher Rufo, who has been reporting on this for City Journal, among other places.
The executive order allows you to sue your company if your company is creating a hostile work environment.
from supporting critical race theory trainings in the federal government, in the military, and by all federal contractors.
Furthermore, the executive order allows you to sue your company if your company is creating a hostile work environment.
According to the executive order, the attorney general should continue to assess the extent to which workplace training that teaches the divisive concepts set forth in this particular executive order may contribute to a hostile work environment and give rise to potential liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In other words, if your boss brings in somebody to train you that all white people are racist, is this a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
Sure, why not?
So I'm glad that the Trump administration is fighting back on this.
But it goes to a broader guilt complex that has been promoted by the media in the United States.
The suggestion, of course, is that any disparity whatsoever is attributable to white Americans and to the systems more broadly.
And we're simply supposed to overlook all the bad stuff that is happening in the name of this movement.
The most obvious example of this, by the way, was ESPN's Max Kellerman yesterday.
It was just awful.
Stick to boxing, Max.
ESPN's Max Kellerman blamed the riots in America's major cities, which have been thoroughgoing Black Lives Matter and Antifa.
He blamed on right-wing protesters.
Because again, when you are pursuing a narrative, the facts simply do not matter at all.
When he talks about, like, Black Lives Matter, 93% of the protests are peaceful.
The vast, overwhelming majority are peaceful.
And by the way, the 7% that are not, they have a very broad definition of what's not quote-unquote peaceful.
For example, if you block traffic or something like that.
Or if you respond to police provocation.
And even then, a big percentage of that, that wasn't peaceful, is actually outside agitators Extremist right-wing agitators posing as protesters in order to make the protests look bad.
That's the first thing.
Okay, so he's making this stuff up.
Again, when it comes to the narrative that America is racist, what that means is excusing criminality, in many cases bailing out the criminals, right?
Remember, Kamala Harris wanted criminals bailed out of jail.
It means overlooking the fact that many disparities in American life are created by personal choice or by circumstances that have nothing to do with racism and have much more to do with class.
It means ignoring data.
That is not the way any public policy should get done in the country.
Unfortunately, a lot of public policy gets done exactly that way.
Okay, meanwhile, I gotta tell you an awful story.
This is being reported by the Post-Millennial.
When you talk about Black Lives Matter movement, and the good or evil of the Black Lives Matter movement, this is an unbelievably shocking and terrifying story, and a tragic story, in fact.
Mia Cathill, reporting for the Post-Millennial, In the wake of Jake Gardner's tragic death, his close friend, who organized two since-deleted GoFundMe pages for his legal defense, spoke to the Post Millennial about the relentless doxing and defamation by a leftist mob prior to the Trump supporter's suicide.
The conservative 38-year-old bar owner from Omaha, Nebraska, took his own life after a grand jury indicted him for the fatal shooting of a black man who assaulted his family and vandalized his storefront, among other neighboring businesses, amid George Floyd protests in May.
You may remember this case.
There's a man named Jake Gardner.
He's 38 years old.
And the facts of the case were caught on tape.
Basically, he came out with a gun to try and defend a business, and he was attacked on the street, and a confrontation ensued in which he shot a young black man.
And this was the cause of rioting.
It was the cause of major consternation.
And at the time, the Douglas County District Attorney said that it was self-defense.
Because the district attorney, his name was Don Kline, he had determined that the man who was shot, a man named Scurlock, I think his name was James Scurlock, dived on Gardner's back and choked him, according to the New York Post.
Gardner could be heard in another bystander's video shouting, get off me, get off me.
With his right arm pinned, Kline noted, Gardner switched the gun to his left hand and fired over his shoulder.
The bullet hit Scurlock in the shoulder-neck area, killing him.
But Kline buckled after BLM activists took to the district attorney's house in July, demanding justice for Scurlock.
According to a friend of Gardner's, you can't tell me a person found completely innocent on the grounds of self-defense was later found indicted because of pressure and numerous anonymous witnesses that came forth against Jake later on.
I don't believe them to be even credible in Jake's death.
I believe it's personally at the feet of weak city officials and the mob rule.
According to the coroner's toxicology report, methamphetamine and cocaine was found in Skrlok's urine. That is the person who was shot, according to the Omaha World-Herald.
Skrlok was also stained by a significant criminal history, just 22 years old.
According to an affidavit obtained by the Nebraska News Channel, it revealed that Skrlok was arrested in 2014 for robbery and use of a firearm to commit a felony.
Law enforcement officers implicated Skrlok's involvement in a home invasion robbery as part of a group of black males who entered the residence and threatened four civilians at gunpoint for drugs and money. He was sentenced to three to five years in prison. He served less than a year, was released the following August. Skrlok was found guilty of assault and battery charges.
Last year, he served one day in jail. The suspect additionally pled guilty to third degree domestic assault past February, completed a 90 day jail sentence.
Now, after the shooting, everybody simply just decided that Gardner was a racist, despite evidence that he was not, in fact, a racist.
He was informed earlier this week that he was going to be tried for murder.
His GoFundMe accounts were taken down.
He was targeted by Black Lives Matter.
A Black Lives Matter activist group contacted his place of employment with a scripted demand claiming to blackball him and any of the companies he works for.
Justin stated that he had never been targeted so viciously, Justin being the friend of Jake Gardner.
Justin tried to create a spot fund page for Jake Gardner, and it sadly has now been turned into a memorial fund because Gardner killed himself.
So again, to recap this case, on May 30th, he was confronted and attacked by BLM activists outside Gardner's Hive Bar in the Old Market neighborhood in Omaha.
While backing up, he reportedly lifted his shirt to show a handgun.
He cautioned instigators he was armed.
Then when he was knocked to a puddle on the ground, Gardner fired two warning shots in the air, attempting to rise to his feet.
An 18-second scuffle broke out with James Scurlock, and then Gardner shot Scurlock.
Gardner, by the way, is a military veteran.
He killed himself after he was told that he would be charged.
He served two tours in Iraq.
He suffered two traumatic brain injuries from combat that placed the veteran on disability.
So, again, there are consequences, as it turns out, to labeling people racist without proper evidence, suggesting that they have participated in murder when they have not.
Which brings us to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.
So people are going nuts because last night, Tucker Carlson had the temerity to show tape on his show that basically told the whole story of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse is, of course, the 17-year-old young man, and I use young man advisedly because once you're 17, you are, in fact, a young man.
He's the young man who shot three people at this riot in Kenosha.
And it was pretty obvious from the tape that it was self-defense.
I mean, we showed the tape at the time.
We analyzed it moment by moment.
Well, now there's new video of Kyle Rittenhouse.
He came to this particular protest, hoping to offer medical aid.
Apparently what happened is that one of the people he shot was going around lighting fires.
He was following them around with a fire extinguisher.
At some point, the guy who was lighting the fire started chasing Rittenhouse.
Another unidentified person started shooting his gun into the air.
Rittenhouse was running away.
He was apparently pinned between a car and one of these riders, at which point he shot one of the riders and the rider died.
He then tried to get to the police.
He was chased down.
He was knocked in the back of the head.
Somebody attempted to attack him with a skateboard.
Another man approached him and pretended that he was going to try and help him and then pulled out a gun and then...
Rittenhouse shot that man in the arm.
So he shot three people.
Two of them died.
The one who survived and had his bicep blown off, essentially.
That guy has been treated by the media as a nurse.
It doesn't matter that his friend, after visiting the man who was shot, said that the man's only regret was not having murdered Rittenhouse.
The bottom line is that according to the media, he's a white supremacist.
There's no evidence, by the way, of white supremacy anywhere in here.
None.
Here's some of the tape that was shown on Tucker's show last night.
To prevent the total destruction of their community, Good Samaritans united to guard local businesses.
Among them was 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse.
So people are getting injured.
And our job is to protect this business and part of my job is also helping people.
If there's somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way.
That's why I have my rifle, because I need to protect myself, obviously.
All three of the people who were shot in these particular circumstances were people with significant criminal records, which does not mean that they necessarily should have been shot.
It does mean that if you're going to talk about the character of the people who are being shot versus the person who is doing the shooting, there's a wide disparity in character.
The tape, again, shows what happened and what it shows that it's going to be nearly impossible to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of murder, especially given the fact that Rittenhouse then, after the first shooting, attempted to go to the police and surrender to police and inform them what had happened.
Here's a little bit of the tape of the first shooting.
As Richard McGinnis began tending to Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse returned to the scene and began placing a call for help.
As the mob begins calling for the attack of Rittenhouse, he is forced to flee the scene.
Okay, so he runs away and then obviously the next shootings take place.
The way that the media have treated this is that he went to kill.
There's no evidence at this point that Rittenhouse went there to commit murder.
In fact, the evidence pretty strongly shows he went there in order to perform other functions.
Should he have been there?
The answer is no.
I've said from the very beginning Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there.
Does that mean that you get to nail the guy on a first-degree murder charge?
Absolutely not.
But again, in order to whitewash Black Lives Matter and pretend that Black Lives Matter is a wonderful movement and that Antifa is really not a problem, they're just anti-fascist.
It is necessary to make some human sacrifices, and if those human sacrifices include people like Jake Gardner or Kyle Rittenhouse, BLM simply does not care.
They simply do not care.
They don't even wait for all the facts to come out at any point here, and yet they are being proclaimed by the media as a wonderful movement.
Now, I have to say, most ironic story of the day, comes courtesy of Alyssa Milano.
So she is a defund the police activist.
According to the UK Daily Mail, she was quick to call cops when she believed an armed gunman was on her Bell Canyon property on Sunday morning.
The call ignited a response that included seven Ventura County Sheriff's vehicles, one canine unit, a police helicopter, and one LA Fire Department team that sat down the street on standby.
Daily Mail obtained exclusive photos showing the first responders coming to the aid of the 47-year-old at her five bed, six bath, 8,000 square foot, $2.5 million home in the upscale gated community that sits just 20 minutes north of LA.
A neighbor told Daily Mail, we first noticed the helicopter circling overhead very low.
We knew something was going on.
It's usually such a quiet community.
Then we saw all the police cars parked in front of Alyssa's home.
They had their guns at the ready and they seemed very serious.
Melissa and her talent agent husband, they said, had dialed 911 when they heard what they believed to be gunshots on their 1.39 acre property.
They allegedly told the emergency hotline the sound scared their dogs and made them feel the gunman was nearby.
They described the person as male, 40 years old, with a long rifle.
The two have been married since 2009.
She's used the enforcement of law enforcement before, I mean, properly.
She got a restraining order against a stalker.
The search by air and street level lasted over three hours, ended abruptly at 1220.
It turned out it was a neighborhood teen with an air gun shooting at squirrels.
The male teenager witnessed the emergency response, later realized he was the cause, and turned himself in.
And now, listen, do I think that there's anything wrong with somebody calling the police if you got somebody on your property walking around with an air gun, which, by the way, you cannot tell the difference, in some cases, between an air gun and a real gun?
No, I don't think there's anything wrong with that, unless you have suggested that calling the police is, in and of itself, an act of evil and racism, and that the police are the problem.
So, Alyssa Milano deserves all of the mockery that she is getting.
It turns out that many of the same people who believe in defunding the police are very much happy to use the police when it suits their particular purposes.
They don't have to live by the standards they set for everybody else.
Okay, 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.
Our Technical Director is Austin Stevens.
Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Assistant Director, Paweł Wajdowski.
Our Associate Producer is Nick Sheehan.
The show is edited by Adam Sajewicz.
Audio Mix by Mike Karomina.
Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Mitt Romney vows not to block President Trump's Supreme Court pick.
President Trump makes the most serious recognition of national rot since the 1850s, and the mainstream media get caught in a major blatant lie about Amy Coney Barrett.
Export Selection