All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 14, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:01:40
ACB Wrecks The Democrats | Ep. 1115
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
ACB devastates ill-prepared Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi loses it on CNN's Wolf Blitzer for asking her a basic question.
And Nikole Hannah-Jones has a rather revealing meltdown.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Your data is your business protected at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
Well, yesterday was another good day for Amy Coney Barrett.
It turns out that she's very good at her job.
She's also very good at defending herself and defending her judicial philosophy.
Democrats, however, are not particularly good at their job, which was to somehow paint Amy Coney Barrett as a deplorable painter, as a crazy right winger.
who is basically using the Constitution as a guise for her own political viewpoint.
They did not succeed in this.
And so as per our usual arrangement, they've decided to change the terms of the debate itself.
We are now living in a world where terms randomly shift definition in chameleonic fashion.
It's really impressive.
Court packing over the last week turned from a very clear and concise term referring to adding seats to a court in order to change the political constituency of that court into filling seats that are open.
That just happened, and Democrats, they started it, and then the media went along with it, and suddenly it became rote to suggest that it is court-packing if you fill open seats or if you hold open seats because you do not wish to confirm somebody of the opposite political party.
That is not, in fact, court-packing.
Well, now, as we are about to see, the Democrats are starting to trot out a new narrative, and that new narrative is that the term sexual preference is homophobic.
Sexual preference itself, that term, is homophobic.
They're trying this one.
When you are losing the argument, you simply change the rules of the game.
This is why, honestly, we say this is how you got Trump too often, but it is true, this is how you got Trump.
People get so angry at the Calvin Ball that Democrats and the media are constantly playing, that they're like, we're sick of the BS, just bring the guy who's gonna break everything.
Just bring that guy.
Because there is nothing quite as irritating as watching people change the rules of the game in real time and then declaring that they are the defenders of fairness, decency, and light.
So I'll explain how all of that happened as this show develops.
But let's begin with Amy Coney Barrett herself.
So, Coney Barrett is an excellent judicial candidate.
She has a very clear and concise judicial philosophy.
She understands originalism really well, and she expresses it really well.
Here was Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday explaining the role of a judge in a democracy.
Part of the rationale for courts adhering to the rule of law and for judges taking great care to avoid imposing their policy preferences is that it's inconsistent with democracy.
Nobody wants to live in accord with the law of Amy.
I'm sure my children don't even want to do that.
So I can't, as a judge, get up on the bench and say, you're going to live by my policy preferences because I have life tenure and you can't kick me out if you don't like them.
So she understands the rule of a judge, what a judge is supposed to do, unlike Democrats and Democrat appointees who believe that a judge's job is simply to define the universe for everybody else.
Amy Coney Barrett continued along these lines.
She says, Here's Amy Coney Barrett saying she is not, in fact, the ruler of the universe.
You said you're an originalist.
the Constitution. That is up to Congress. It is up to the states. They can do all of this.
Here's Amy Coney Barrett saying she is not, in fact, the ruler of the universe.
You said you're an originalist. Is that true? What does that mean in English?
Okay, so in English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.
So that meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.
Okay, this kind of stuff ticks Democrats off to no end because, of course, they want justices to impose their own policy views on the Constitution so long as they are from the left.
And in order to justify that, they have to openly state or imply that originalists are actually just liars.
They don't actually care about the original meaning of the Constitution.
They are just using that as a guise in order to forward their own political agenda.
Sort of like how the 1619 Project suggests the Declaration of Independence was a bunch of lies written and designed in order to protect slavery, which of course is untrue.
People on the left pretend that originalism is about somehow shoehorning in your right-wing policy preferences into the law via this document, the Constitution.
Well, that's a lot of projection because it is the Democrats, it is Democrats appointees who have historically shoehorned their own policy preferences into law.
In fact, you can see this statistically.
Ilya Shapiro of Cato Institute pointed out that during the 2019 Supreme Court term, there were 67 decisions.
The four justices appointed by Democrats voted together 51 times out of the 67.
Republican appointees only voted together 37 times.
In other words, there's a lot of difference between how Republican appointed justices vote People are heterodox in how they approach these issues if they are originalists or textualists.
On a fundamental level, Republican appointees don't see their job as policy preference.
They see their job as interpreting the law faithfully.
But Democrats only celebrate the court when the court is doing their policy preference.
This is why they love Roe v. Wade so much.
Roe v. Wade is a terrible case legally.
Even its own advocates will admit it has nothing to do with the Constitution.
It's why some of the most celebrated positions in constitutional law are positions the left loves, specifically because they have nothing to do with the Constitution.
Some of their favorite quotes are things like this from Planned Parenthood versus Casey, where they say that every person in the United States, quote, has the right to, quote, define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Well, if they really believe that, then presumably you'd be able to decide that on the level of a locality or a state.
But what they really mean is that the Supreme Court is going to define for everybody their specific definition of the concept of existence, meaning the universe and the mystery of human life.
What the hell does that have to do with the Constitution?
Democrats see nothing but wonder in Supreme Court justices declaring that the judiciary has been delegated enforcement of a, quote, charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.
In other words, the Supreme Court gets to be the evolving standards of decency by which we are all judged.
Another Supreme Court, quote, evolving standards of decency.
They don't say that when we have evolving standards of decency, we get to vote on those evolving standards of decency.
That's just called the Democratic Republic.
They say that they get to cram down on all of us their own evolving standard of decency.
They believe that they get to make law via emanations and penumbras from the Constitution.
That's Griswold v. Connecticut of 1965.
It was on that slim reed that Roe v. Wade is based.
This is what Democrats want from the court.
But this is not what originalists do.
And this is why Democrats are so angry at originalists like ACB.
Because, number one, they don't like originalism.
Originalism defeats their definition of the court.
And two, originalism gives the lie to their cynical viewpoint, which is that judges ought to basically impose their own vision of the law on the rest of the country.
So ACB continued along these lines.
She explicitly rebuked, essentially the Barack Obama vision of a judge.
So Barack Obama infamously stated that he wanted judges with empathy and life experiences because their life experiences would help them define how they made judgments.
ACB said, I have interesting life experiences.
They have nothing whatsoever to do with how I judge a case.
While my life experiences, I think, you know, I hope have given me wisdom and compassion.
They don't dictate how I decide cases.
Um, because you know, as we discussed before, and I've discussed a couple of times, sometimes you have to decide cases in ways where you don't like the result.
So while I hope that my family has made me a better person and my children definitely have given me new perspectives on life.
I still, in applying the law and deciding cases, you know, don't let those experiences dictate the outcome.
Okay, so normally the way that the Democrats fight this sort of thing is by claiming that the person doesn't have empathy.
That the judicial nominee is cruel and vicious for not using their own life experiences, not looking into their hearts before interpreting constitutional law.
There's only one problem.
Amy Coney Barrett is a particularly sympathetic figure.
She is not only a very brilliant legal mind, she also happens to be a mom of seven, and she's very personable.
And this came across very well in the hearings yesterday.
Here was Amy Coney Barrett talking about her adoption of two children from Haiti.
When Jesse and I were engaged, we met another couple who had adopted, in this instance it was a couple who had adopted a child with special needs.
And then we also met another couple who had adopted a few children internationally.
And we decided at that point, while we were engaged, that at some point in the future, We wanted to do that ourselves.
And I guess we had imagined initially that we would have whatever biological kids that we had decided to have and then adopt at the end.
But after we had our first daughter, Emma, we thought, well, why wait?
Okay, well, that does not seem like an unsympathetic, terrible person to me, which is what Democrats would prefer to paint her as.
They would also prefer to paint her as a racist.
It makes it kind of difficult when she's obviously not a racist.
So here was ACB yesterday talking about the George Floyd video and watching it with her two black children.
I was there, and my 17-year-old daughter, Vivian, who's adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting.
It was very difficult for her.
We wept together in my room.
And then it was also difficult for my daughter, Juliet, who's 10.
I had to try to explain some of this to them.
I mean, my children, to this point in their lives, have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced Hatred or violence and for Vivian.
You know, to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation.
It's a difficult one for us, like it is for Americans all over the country.
Okay, the other problem for them is it turns out that Amy Coney Barrett does represent a lot of viewpoints from the middle of the country.
She lives a lifestyle that many in the middle of the country can identify, but people on the coast sometimes have trouble identifying.
Until very recently.
I lived in Los Angeles with my parents, lived very closely nearby.
My mom worked in Hollywood.
And at her office, sometimes she was asked how many kids she had.
And she said, I have four kids.
And people would look at her cross-eyed.
Four kids?
That's so many children.
Of course, in the religious community, that's not a lot of children, right?
We're Orthodox Jews.
And in the Orthodox Jewish community, if you say you have four kids, they say, okay, what happened to the other three?
Right?
Because the fact is that the Orthodox Jewish community, like the Catholic community, is very fertile.
Well, there are certain cultural things about living in the middle of the country or living in a religious community that people find absolutely natural in the middle of the country, but people on the coast really don't.
And you can tell by the media coverage.
Yesterday, Amy Coney Barrett was asked whether her family owns a gun, and she said yes.
And the media were like, oh my God, she owns a gun.
And the hundred million gun owners in America were like, okay, so?
Like, good, she should own a gun.
I mean, it's good to be able to defend yourself.
Here's Amy Coney Barrett yesterday.
When it comes to your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun?
We do own a gun.
Okay.
Alright.
Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun?
Yes.
Judges can't just wake up one day and say, I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world.
Okay, that of course is exactly right.
Again, she is saying, my own personal views on these issues don't have any relevance to interpreting the law, which of course is right.
I mean, that is what a judge is supposed to do.
Your job is to judge, right?
It is not to impose, it is to judge.
There's a certain irony to the fact that if Amy Coney Barrett had gone in there and said, I've had three abortions, the Democrats would be cheering.
But if she says that her family has a gun, the Democrats are scared beyond all measure.
It does say something about the relative moral viewpoint of the various political sides.
The most viral moment from Amy Coney Barrett yesterday happened when she was asked specifically by John Cornyn of Texas to show the notes that she was using during the hearing.
So all of the Democratic senators, they brought like big binders of notes to try and question Amy Coney Barrett.
And Coney Barrett was asked, so what kind of notes are you using in order to respond to all of this?
And she had a response.
You know, most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books and things like that in front of us.
Can you hold up what you've been referring to and answering our questions?
Is there anything on it?
That letterhead that says United States Senate.
That's impressive.
Well, slay a queen, but actually, like, slay a queen.
That's kind of awesome.
Right?
That's kind of awesome.
The fact is, as we'll see, when it came to her running circles around the Democrats intellectually, it was fairly obvious.
And Democrats tried, tried to get their viral moments, but they completely failed.
And so they've now been relegated to rewriting the English language.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, we need to talk about the fact that when you are running a business, HR issues actually matter.
HR issues can absolutely kill you.
Wrongful terminations, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations.
And HR manager salaries, they're not cheap.
They average $70,000 a year.
Bambi, it's spelled B-A-M-B-E, was created specifically for small businesses because you don't actually want to spend your time doing HR.
All you want to do is create products and services for others, but you're going to need to cover HR or it could cost you hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
You can get a dedicated HR manager from Bambi, craft HR policy, maintain your compliance, all for just 99 bucks a month.
With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.
Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat.
From onboarding determinations, they customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees' day-to-day all for just $99 a month.
Month-to-month, there are no hidden fees.
Cancel any time.
You didn't start your business because you feel like spending time on HR compliance is super fun.
There's a reason that everybody hates Toby on The Office.
And the fact is, what you need is HR, and you need HR done quickly, and easily, and inexpensively, and Bambi can get it done for you right now.
Go to Bambi.com slash Shapiro right now.
Schedule your free HR audit.
That is Bambi.com slash Shapiro.
Spell BAM to the B-E-E dot com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so, the Democrats Spent the entire time trying to do gotchas against Amy Coney Barrett.
That was their big thing.
They were going to gotcha Amy Coney Barrett over and over and over.
Well, there's one problem, which is that back in 1993, Democrats established a rule.
It was called the Ginsburg Rule.
It was named after Ruth Bader Ginsburg because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an ACLU litigator Who had argued in favor of legalizing prostitution against separate prisons for men and women.
And she had speculated that there was a constitutional right to polygamy.
That was back in 1993.
And Republicans were preparing to ask her all of these difficult questions.
And so Democrats came up with a rule.
This rule was actually crafted, handcrafted, by one senator from Delaware named Joseph Biden.
He came up with the Ginsburg Rule.
The rule was that you could not actually ask a question or allow judges to answer questions on issues likely to come before the courts or make any statement that would create the appearance that they are not impartial.
So, Senator Biden said that between 19- that basically nominees never testified during confirmation hearings prior to 1955.
In 1949, there was a nominee who was called to testify and refused and was still confirmed.
This is all according to Heritage Foundation.
Biden warned senators not to ask questions about how Ginsburg will decide any specific case that may come before her.
Ginsburg followed Joe Biden's roadmap.
Senator Pat Leahy, who was still in the Senate at that time.
Senator Leahy has been in the Senate since the establishment of Vermont as a state in the 1770s.
He asked about the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and Ginsburg said, I prefer not to address a question like that.
Leahy pressed her for interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, and Ginsburg said, I would prefer to await a particular case.
And then Leahy said, I understand.
Just trying, Judge.
Just trying.
Ginsburg just refused to answer over and over and over.
She refused two senators' requests to address gay rights.
She said anything I say could be taken as a hint or a forecast on how I would treat a classification that is going to be in question before the court.
Again, this was called the Ginsburg Rule.
Ed Meese, the former U.S.
Attorney General, writes about this.
Here was Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 helping to establish the so-called Ginsburg Rule.
A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, No hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.
Okay, so Democrats now are angry at the Ginsburg rule.
Again, this is how it works.
This is all Calvin Ball, right, from the Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, in which the rules are constantly changing.
It's just Calvin Ball.
There's a famous baseball movie called Bang the Drum Slowly, in which baseball players win money from unsuspecting people in sort of bars and hotels.
They understand that commoners want to play cards with them.
And so they set up a game, and the game is literally called the Fun and Exciting Game with No Rules.
And they just randomly change the rules because they understand that commoners want to play with them.
This is what Democrats do.
What Democrats do is they sit around and they establish rules that they then break as soon as those rules are no longer convenient to them.
So yesterday, every Democrat, all of whom, most of these Democrats were there in 1993, all of them know about the so-called Ginsburg rule.
OK, all of them decided it was very bad for Amy Coney Barrett not to violate the Ginsburg rule.
So here is Dianne Feinstein trying to press Amy Coney Barrett about Roe v. Wade and Amy Coney Barrett saying, listen, I can't speak to how I will adjudicate on a case that has yet to come before me.
And if I give you my specific opinion on how Roe v. Wade was decided, then you may take that as an indicator of how I'm going to rule on a case in which Roe v. Wade is the precedent.
And I'm not going to do that.
Now, let me be frank about this.
I think the Ginsburg rule is stupid.
I think the Ginsburg rule is idiotic.
I think you should be able to ask a judicial nominee about anything under the sun.
But unfortunately, because Democrats have politicized the court, this has become impossible.
The Ginsburg rule was a natural reaction to the Borking of Robert Bork.
In the 1980s, Robert Bork was brought up before the Senate, and Joe Biden was involved in this, then too.
He was involved in going after Bork and calling him a racist and suggesting that he was a benighted refugee from 1853.
And then Republicans said, OK, fine, well, we're going to ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg the same question. So Democrats set up the Ginsburg rule. And now Democrats want to violate the Ginsburg rule because, again, there's a Republican nominee before them. So here was here was Dianne Feinstein going after Amy Coney Barrett. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided? Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question,
but again, I can't precommit or say, yes, I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not.
Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court?
Well, I think my answer is the same because, you know, that's a case that's litigated.
Okay, and you can see Feinstein is very angry that you won't answer our question on Roe vs Wade, the goal here.
is to get ACB to say she's going to overturn Roe.
Which, by the way, Roe is not going to get overturned.
Even if Amy Coney Barrett were to vote to overturn Roe, I think there are at best three votes on the Supreme Court, certainly not five, to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Roberts ain't going to vote for it.
Kavanaugh's not going to vote for it.
I don't think Gorsuch would vote for it.
So I think at best you have three votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Then Barrett replied to Dianne Feinstein, Listen, you keep wanting me to say political things.
I'm not going to say political things.
If you want to do something political, you know you're sitting in a body called the United States Senate.
You can do it anytime you choose.
Any issue that would arise under the Affordable Care Act or any other statute should be determined by the law, by looking at the text of the statute, by looking at precedent the same way that it would for anyone.
And if there were policy differences or That of course is exactly right.
Okay, so now the Democrats start to get more and more desperate.
It's really a question of adhering to the law, going where the law leads, and leaving the policy decisions up to you.
That of course is exactly right.
Okay, so now the Democrats start to get more and more desperate.
So Amy Klobuchar tries to ask ACB about Roe She asked whether it constitutes quote-unquote super precedent.
Super precedent is a case that is so well established in the American political system that it would be impossible to overturn it regardless as to whether there are legal flaws in the reasoning of the case.
So Brown versus Board is a clear and obvious example of what Supreme Court scholars have called super precedent precedent that will never be overturned simply because it has been so deeply embedded in the life of our nation, right?
Marbury versus Madison is super precedent.
Roe versus Wade is clearly not super precedent because super precedent is something that is so well established there is no debate over it any longer.
Like there is no debate over segregation in the United States.
There's no debate over whether it is legal.
There's no debate over whether it is good.
There's no debate over whether the 14th Amendment allows it.
Right?
It is super precedent.
There's debate every single day.
Every single day.
Over Roe vs. Wade.
Because Roe vs. Wade was not only precipitously decided, it was wrongly decided.
So it is certainly not super precedent.
Okay, so in a second, we'll get to Amy Coney Barrett's answer on that particular question.
First, let us talk about the fact that you're spending an awful lot of time on that sofa lately.
And if you do not have an all-form sofa, I honestly don't even know what you're doing with your life.
I mean, this is like an incredible, incredible sofa because it's not going to cost you a fortune.
It's incredibly durable.
It is super comfortable.
So comfortable, in fact, that when I have relatives come over, people sort of fight on who gets to sleep on the all-form sofa, because the sofa is more comfortable than many of the beds in our house.
If you've been listening to the show for a while, you've heard me talk about my Helix Sleep Mattress.
Well, the same people make all-form sofas.
Allform makes premium customizable sofas and chairs shipped directly to your door.
What makes an Allform sofa really cool?
Well, for starters, it's the easiest way you can customize a sofa using premium materials 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 and shape to 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 Allform sofa to grow and change with you when you move.
Allform sofas, they're also delivered directly to your home with fast, free shipping.
In the past, if you wanted to order a sofa, it could take weeks, even months, to arrive.
You would need somebody to come and assemble it in your home.
Allform will take you just three or seven days to arrive in the mail.
You can assemble it yourself in just a few minutes.
No tools needed, I know, because I have done this.
If getting a sofa without trying it in store sounds risky, don't worry.
You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it.
Which is more than three months.
If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free, give you a full refund, and they have a forever warranty.
So what do you have to lose?
Go to allform.com slash Ben right now.
They're offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash Ben.
Again, that is allform.com slash Ben.
As I say, our Allform sofa is tremendous.
We have the sectional with its chaise.
It's a three-seat sofa with chaise in the sand color with espresso legs.
It's fantastic.
Everybody loves it.
Go check it out right now, allform.com slash Ben.
Is Roe a super precedent?
increasingly desperate during this hearing with ACB.
So Amy Klobuchar confuses herself by asking Amy Coney Barrett about super precedent, and it doesn't go great for Amy Klobuchar.
I'm not.
I'm up here, so I'm asking you.
Okay, well people use super precedent differently.
Okay.
The way that it's used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.
And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category.
Owned with facts and logic, Amy Coney Barrett for the win.
I mean, this is why you don't leave open-ended- I mean, Klobuchar's a lawyer.
Don't ask questions you don't know the answers to.
If you have a definition of super precedent, lay it out there, and then ask Amy Coney Barrett whether it fulfills the definition.
If you allow Amy Coney Barrett to set the definition of super precedent, of course she's going to define it in the way that she has defined it before.
Amy Klobuchar did not look good in that exchange.
It got progressively worse for Democrats.
Dick Durbin, who's an idiot, started berating Amy Coney Barrett over Indiana gun laws, which, like, I wasn't aware that she set Indiana gun laws or that she's a legislator in the Indiana State Assembly or anything.
Here is Senator Dick Durbin being an idiot.
We know how it works.
Where you live, you know how it works.
There's a traffic between Chicago, Northern Indiana, and Michigan going on constantly.
Gun shows are held in Gary, Indiana, and other places.
And when they're selling these firearms without background checks, unfortunately, these gangbangers and thugs fill up the trunks of their cars with firearms and head into the city of Chicago and kill everyone from infants to older people.
It's a horrific situation.
Okay, so what does that have to do with Amy Coney Barrett exactly?
The answer is nothing.
Cory Booker, Mr. Potato Head, the worst actor in the United States Senate, put on his angry eyes to question Amy Coney Barrett, and then he blinked very seriously.
And then he articulated all of his words, because he is the worst.
That mouth, man.
Here is Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey questioning Amy Coney Barrett on whether she supports white supremacy.
Yes, I'm sure that she is a member of the KKK with her two adopted black children.
Go, Senator Booker.
I want to just ask you very simply, and I imagine you'll give me a very short, resolute answer, but you condemn white supremacy, correct?
Yes.
Thank you.
I'm glad to see that you said that.
I wish our president would say that so resolutely and unequivocally as well.
She's like, what in the F are you talking about?
Cory Booker, are you an idiot?
And the answer is yes, Cory Booker is, in fact, an idiot.
So the looks I mean, I'm old enough to remember that vice presidential debate where Kamala Harris was was doing the fake laugh and the weird smirk.
Amy Coney Barrett's facial expressions are so much more slay queen than Kamala Harris's, it's not even close.
She's looking at him like, are you a dumbass?
And the answer, of course, is he is.
He is, in fact, a dumbass.
It got even worse than that.
So we'll save the very best for last, but Maisie Hirono asked a couple of questions.
One of them was so beyond the pale stupid that it is nearly impossible to describe how stupid it is.
It was immediately picked up by the media and turned into a bizarre narrative.
They literally shifted dictionary definitions to meet Democratic talking points.
We'll get to that in a second.
But she also asked, this was her less dumb question.
Okay, let's get to our last topic.
So Maisie Hirono, the stupidest person in the United States Senate.
She is a moron.
I mean, a pure, full-scale moron.
IQ of a potato.
And I don't even mean like a baked potato.
I mean like a raw potato pulled directly from the ground.
A full-on tuber pulled directly from a field.
That is the brainpower of Maisie Hirono, the Democrat from Hawaii.
She asked ACB, randomly, if she had ever committed sexual assault.
I'm gonna go no on that one.
So we've now been asked whether ACB likes white supremacy and also if she is a rapist.
Did she just have this one left over from the Kavanaugh hearings or what?
Here's Maisie Hirono.
I ask each nominee these two questions and I will ask them of you.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
No, Senator Hirono.
Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
No, Senator.
Yeah, man.
It's hard not to laugh right now.
Because what the hell?
You literally just spent time in a Supreme Court hearing asking a Catholic mother of seven, whether she has engaged in sexual harassment or assault.
Mm hmm.
Yeah, man.
Yeah.
And then we got Sheldon Whitehouse.
I mean, these are the people you elect, folks.
I have a question.
Do you want to give any of these people more power?
Like, you can say that the Republicans in the Senate are idiots.
You can say that the Democrats in the Senate are idiots.
Okay, if they're all idiots, why do you want to give them more power?
I don't understand.
I really do not understand.
Americans keep saying how much they hate Congress and how much they hate the president and how much they hate the federal government.
And then they're like, but what if we gave them more power?
Okay, here is brilliant Brilliant Sherlock Holmesian sleuth, Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.
Yeah, this guy is just, this is, this is me trying to explain.
You know, Talmudic injunctions about how to set up an Eruv to people who don't even know what a Jew is.
This is like, what is he even doing right here?
I don't, I don't know.
He takes out a chart to explain how this is all driven by money.
Money!
Sheldon Whitehouse.
He takes out a chart.
He first took out a chart, I have to say.
He took out a big sign and it said, the scheme, as though it was one of those Act breaks in a Tarantino film, he broke like a placard.
It said, The Scheme.
And then you sort of expected, you know, like Tom Sizemore to walk out and start speaking in jargon to Harvey Keitel or something.
He said, The Scheme.
And then, he takes out a sign that has on it a bunch of words that have very little to do with each other and a bunch of money signs.
And he starts explaining this thing, like Charlie Day in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Here we go, Sheldon Whitehouse.
And by the way, the point that he's making is that conservative groups want conservative justices appointed.
That's his point.
And he starts, like, taking yarn and using it like Kerry on Homeland to make one of these giant FBI boards.
Sheldon Whitehouse, genius.
Sherlock Holmesian sleuth.
In all cases, there's big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity.
One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society.
It's managed by a guy, was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo, and it's taken over the selection of judicial nominees.
All the same funders, over and over again.
Bringing the cases, and providing this orchestrated, orchestrated chorus of amici.
Then, the same group also funds the Federalist Society over here.
It was an 80 to 0, 5 to 4 partisan rout.
Ransacking.
And then there's a cutaway to Lindsey Graham, and Graham's like, what did they put in this guy's coffee?
What in the world is going on?
It did not go great for Sheldon Whitehouse.
By the way, Cruz then blowtorched Sheldon Whitehouse.
He pointed out, you know who spends an awful lot of money on legal issues?
Everyone, including the left.
Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.
The fact is that the court system in the United States has routinely been used in order to make certain laws illegal, in order to strike down certain laws.
The entire Rosa Parks heroic story was orchestrated by the NAACP.
It was not that Rosa Parks spontaneously decided to sit down in the back of the bus.
It was well planned with other local leaders.
This sort of stuff has been done for years on end.
Brown v. Board was a legal strategy that was undertaken by the NAACP.
This notion that political groups don't spend money in the realm of law is bizarre.
Here is Cruz just going after Sheldon Whitehouse and blowtorching him.
The senator from Rhode Island talked about big corporate powers without acknowledging that the contributions from the Fortune 500 in this presidential election overwhelmingly favor Joe Biden and the Democrats.
So all of the great umbrage about the corporate interest or spending dark money is wildly in conflict.
Okay, that of course is exactly true.
Okay, so this brings us to the key moment of the entire day.
It had nothing to do with Amy Coney Barrett, because Coney Barrett will be confirmed.
What it had to do with is, again, this absurd move to redefine basic terms of language in order to drive narratives.
It's incredible.
We've watched it happen again with court packing in the last two weeks, and now we're watching it happen with the term sexual preference.
So sometime yesterday, there was a producer for Lawrence O'Donnell who got angry at Amy Coney Barrett because she used the term sexual preference, which is a widely used term.
It's been used by the gay advocacy magazine, The Advocate.
Joe Biden used it less than five months ago during a debate, I believe, or at least during a rally.
And Judge Amy Coney Barrett used it when she was speaking about sexual preference.
Meaning like, are you straight?
Or are you gay?
Or are you bisexual?
There is nothing discriminatory about the term sexual preference.
Nothing.
So this guy got angry.
He said, sexual preference suggests that we have a choice in how we choose to prefer things.
Well, no, actually, it doesn't suggest that at all.
We have lots of preferences in our daily life that are biologically driven.
Many of them.
The term sexual preference has been widely used for decades at this point.
In fact, sexual preference was a term that was widely used in the gay community for many years.
It's used right now.
But Maisie Hirono picked this up and then decided Amy Coney Barrett was an obnoxious heteronormative homophobe because she used the term sexual preference, which is incredible.
I mean, this is just absurd.
So here's Maisie Hirono saying something incredibly dumb.
And as we will see, I mean, this is Stalinist.
It really is Stalin-esque stuff.
The dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, went in and revised their definition of the term sexual preference to reflect this newfound umbrage taken by Democrats.
So within 30 seconds of Democrats redefining the term sexual preference to be offensive, Webster's Dictionary redefined its own definition.
Okay, this is Stalin disappearing people from the photos.
Here's Maisie Hirono originally laying out this idiocy.
Not once, but twice, you use the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community.
And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.
It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.
It is not.
Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity.
That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.
Okay, and again, Coney Barrett's looking at her like, what are you talking about?
I haven't suggested anything to the contrary there.
What are you, what, what in the world?
So Webster's Dictionary, I mean, this is how fast these things, this is when we say that the institutions are stacked against not only conservatives, but against reason.
This is, this is why.
Our cultural institutions are stacked, and they are stacked on behalf of the left.
They are willing to redefine dictionary terms in order to meet with democratic and woke fascist-y approval.
Okay, literally yesterday, yesterday, they went in and redefined Webster's Dictionary, redefined the definition of preference.
Okay, so the fifth definition of preference in Webster's Dictionary, up until yesterday, was orientation, as in sexual preference.
Okay, they went in, they redefined the term yesterday, as soon as this narrative started to take root, to say offensive, see usage below, orientation, sexual preference.
It's offensive.
Okay, they literally changed the dictionary definition of a term in order to meet with the approval of Democrats.
It's incredible.
It really is impressive stuff.
It's impressive stuff that the democratic machine, the media democratic complex, is so well-oiled that within 30 seconds of a bold bleep, nonsensical rhetorical move to redefine a long-held American term, they'll just do it.
No problem.
This is gaslighting, it's deconstructionism at its height.
This is Jacques Derrida driving everybody up a wall in the name of leftist politics.
If we don't have a common language, we can't have a common conversation, and maybe that's the goal.
No common conversation.
We'll just shift the literal definition of human terminology in order to meet with particular political preferences.
Preferences, by the way, is meant non-offensively there.
Okay, so then the Democrats tried to come up with finally some sort of semblance of a narrative that they could pick up from all of this.
They tried to say that Kamala Harris did a good job with Amy Coney Barrett.
She did not.
She did a terrible job.
She spent the first 20 minutes of her 30 minutes basically giving a campaign speech from her basement.
It was not particularly inspiring.
Here was Kamala Harris talking directly.
She was supposed to question ACB.
Instead, she's like, I'm gonna use this time to talk directly to the American people.
Oh God, please, please don't.
If ever somebody comes up to you and they say, I want to talk directly to you, Turn around and run.
Turn around and run.
I don't care who you are.
If this sort of stuff doesn't bug you, then you haven't been watching politics long enough.
Before I begin, I wanted to take a moment to talk directly to the American people about where we are and how we got here.
So we are in the middle of a deadly pandemic that has hit our country harder than any other country in the world.
More than 215,000 of our fellow Americans have died and millions more, including the president, Republican members of this committee, and more than 100 frontline workers here at the Capitol complex have been infected.
Okay, what does that have to do with Amy Coney Barrett?
The answer is nothing, of course.
This is just Harris posturing and grandstanding.
So the Democrats tried to say there was one moment where she got Amy Coney Barrett, except she didn't.
She was inexact in her language, and Barrett picked her apart.
Here was Harris asking, if it's important for the Supreme Court to be impartial, why don't you recuse yourself?
And ACB saying, look, you guys set up the Ginsburg rule.
You can't do this.
Do you think it is important for the American people to believe that Supreme Court justices are independent and fair and impartial?
Is a yes or no answer, please?
Yes, Senator Harris.
A number of my colleagues have asked you today whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the Affordable Care Act.
You did not directly answer their questions and instead you described a process.
I can't have you elicit a commitment from me about how I would make that decision in advance.
That would be wrong.
Okay, and that was the big moment for Kamala Harris.
It was not a big moment.
You can tell how badly this went for Democrats because MSNBC absolutely melted down.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let us talk about the fact that you don't want to be spending any time at the auto body store.
You wouldn't want to in the middle of a COVID pandemic, but you especially would not want to, like, ever.
And the reason is because why would you stand in line to get up to the front, request a part, get a generic part that doesn't work right, or have them order it online, then it takes a week for it to arrive and your car still doesn't work instead?
Why don't you just go online and do it yourself?
Go to rockauto.com.
Rockauto.com always offers 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?
Like, say you happen to need a Delphi FG1456 fuel pump assembly.
That'll cost you $354 at a big chain store, but you can get it at Rock Auto for $217.
RockAuto.com.
It's a family business, serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Head on over to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
Again, those prices are reliably low.
The same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
Why would you spend up to twice as much?
for the same parts. Head on over 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.
Again, that is rockauto.com. Write Shapiro in that. How did you hear about us box? So they know that we sent you. Okay. In just a second, we'll get to MSNBC melting down and then Nancy Pelosi So Nancy Pelosi, it's amazing.
Nancy Pelosi is Trump.
She's just female and Democrat.
As much as the press love to talk about how Trump hates the media and how he's thin-skinned and all this kind of stuff, Nancy Pelosi makes Trump look like an island of calm in a river of crazy.
I mean, that's how bad Nancy Pelosi is.
We'll get to Nancy Pelosi in just one second.
First, if you haven't heard already, Daily Wire's old glory Daily Wire baseball bat is back.
This is our limited edition, handcrafted, custom-painted baseball bat emblazoned with that magical Daily Wire logo, which means that it is super powerful.
Since we relaunched on Monday, they're almost all sold out.
Today is the last day they will be available.
You can still get yours if you hurry.
Text the keyword baseball to 83400 to purchase your bat today.
And if you haven't already, head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Become a member today.
Members get our articles ad-free.
Access to all of our live broadcast and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show, exclusive Reader's Pass content, available only to Daily Wire members.
If you're considering an all-access membership, you get to join us on all-access live every night for online and live stream discussions.
You also get not one, but two leftist-tier tumbler with your membership, as well as early, sometimes exclusive, access to new Daily Wire products.
So go check us out over at dailywire.com right now and get your all-access membership.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So the way you can tell that Amy Coney Barrett did really well last night is because all of the media talking heads were super, super angry at her.
So Ellie Mistal, who's lost it, is now comparing ACB to the Proud Boys on MSNBC.
This is what passes for intelligent commentary over on MSNBC, the land of crazy.
Here is Ellie Mistal just losing it.
It's almost like Donald Trump is telling her, stand back and stand by, right?
Again, we have to understand what this woman is being sent to do.
Trump has already told us he wants the Supreme Court to look at the ballots.
It would be the easiest thing in the world for her to say, you know what, I'm not going to do that.
The fact that she won't do it tells you all you need to know about her character and all you need to know about what she intends to do if she is confirmed before the election.
She literally said, I can't judge a case until it comes up before me.
And he's like, she's gonna stuff the ballot box.
She is like the Proud Boys.
Okay, I'm sorry, you're a crazy person.
Joy Reid, another crazy person on that same show.
She said, Amy Coney Barrett doesn't know the law.
Yes, I'm sure that legal expert Joy Reid will inform us of the law.
Here's Joy Reid informing us of the law.
This lady is a, let's just remind her, she's a sitting judge right now, so she theoretically knows the law.
Amy Klobuchar, who I think also is a very effective questioner today, asked her a pretty simple, straightforward question.
Is voter intimidation illegal?
Okay, she knows the law.
I'm fairly certain that she knows the law, as it turns out.
Okay, well, the true meltdown of the day was not over on MSNBC, it was over on CNN.
So Nancy Pelosi has been holding up this stimulus package.
Republicans have proposed $1.8 trillion in new spending to stimulate people who have been hurt by the lockdown.
Because again, when the government forces you not to do your business, well, then the government has taken something from you and they ought to compensate you.
This is the Fifth Amendment, the Takings Clause.
Even Democrats have been slamming Nancy Pelosi for her unwillingness to take any sort of deal.
Andrew Yang, over the weekend, tweeted at her, and he told Pelosi to take the deal or risk political fallout.
He said, put politics aside, people are hurting.
Former Obama administration official Dan Pfeiffer agreed, telling Pelosi to ignore potential risk and just ink the deal.
He said Democrats should aggressively pursue a COVID relief deal with Trump, according to Emily Zanotti over at Daily Wire.
He said it's the right thing to do, but the politics can also work in our favor.
Even Representative Ro Khanna, who's very far to the left, like a Bernie Sanders leftist, suggested that a stimulus package would be a good idea.
So she was asked about this by Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
How unused to criticism is Nancy Pelosi?
When she is asked a simple question by Wolf Blitzer, she loses her damned mind.
She starts to look like the bad guys at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where their faces melt off.
I mean, she just lost it.
She called him a Republican apologist?
I mean, this was a crazy, off-the-rails interview.
And if she weren't a Democrat, everybody would be— This is the brilliant strategist, we have all been told, is the mistress of our imagination.
Here was Nancy Pelosi melting down on Wolf Blitzer, of all people.
Excuse me for interrupting, Madam Speaker, but they really need the money right now.
And even members of your own caucus, Madam Speaker, want to accept this deal, 1.8 trillion dollars.
So what do you say to Ro Khanna?
What I say to you is, I don't know why you're always an apologist.
And many of your colleagues, apologists for the Republican position.
Ro Khanna, that's nice.
That isn't what we're going to do.
Okay, Wolf Blitzer is an apologist for the Republicans?
Really?
Wolf Blitzer and CNN?
You know how wildly leftist and in-your-bubble you have to be to believe that Wolf Blitzer is an apologist for the Republicans?
It got worse, by the way.
Nancy Pelosi, if Trump had done this to any member of the media, it'd be, this is a threat to the free press.
How dare anybody treat a member of our beloved journalistic establishment like this?
This is just terrible.
The president only wants his name on a check to go out before election day and for the market to go up.
Is that what this is all about?
Not allow the president to take credit if there's a deal that will help millions of Americans right now?
No, I don't care about that.
He's not that important, but let me say this.
With all due respect, with all due respect, and you know we've known each other a long time, you really don't know what you're talking about.
That was a lot of due respect there.
I felt the respect.
Did you feel all the respect there?
With all due respect, with all due respect, you're an ass.
She's lost her mind.
My goodness, my goodness.
This is 14 minutes long.
It's 14 minutes of pure pain in the octagon.
She got even more unhinged.
Here she was.
Do you have any idea of how... That's precisely why, Madam Speaker... Just woefully short, they're concerned.
We're concerned.
It's so important right now.
Yesterday I spoke to Andrew Yang, who says the same thing.
It's not everything you want, but there's a lot there.
Honest to God, you really... I can't get over it.
I didn't come over here to have... So you're the apologist for the Obama... Excuse me.
God forbid.
Madam Speaker, I'm not an apologist.
I'm asking you serious questions because so many people are in desperate need right now.
Let me ask you this.
When was the last time... Let me respond to you.
Unbelievable.
Okay, and then it concluded with her saying to Wolf Blitzer, I feed poor people.
What, from your $20,000 Sub-Zero fridge with your $13 pints of custom-made gelato?
Nancy, that's how you're feeding the poor?
Here's Nancy Pelosi talking about, I feed the poor people.
Let them eat cake.
Literally, we're talking about how you're not feeding the poor people.
That's literally the topic of conversation, is why won't you just sign a $1.8 trillion deal to give people money in the middle of the greatest lockdown in modern American history?
And she's like, I feed poor people.
I feed poor people nothing.
Here is Nancy Pelosi concluding this brilliant interview with Wolf Blitzer.
Remember, this is the most brilliant strategist of our time, we've been told.
We know them.
We represent them and we know them.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say here in Washington.
Madam Speaker.
Always the case, but we're not even close to the good.
All right, let's see what happens, because every day is critically, critically important.
Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents' needs.
I am sensitive to them, because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money.
Madam Speaker, thank you so much.
Have you fed them?
We feed them.
We feed them.
Well, no you don't.
I feed them.
And here's a here's a 13 a $13 pint of ice cream you poor person WAPSHUAA EHEHEHE That's incredible stuff How do you know somebody's been in the bubble too long?
That's how you know somebody's been in the bubble too long.
When Wolf Blitzer is owning you in an exchange, you've been in the bubble a little, little bit too long.
Wild stuff.
But that media bubble is extraordinary.
My media bubble is incredible.
So how bad is the media bubble?
Here is how bad the media bubble is.
So the 1619 Project is garbage.
I've talked to you about how the 1619 Project is garbage.
The 1619 Project posits that the American experiment is rooted in slavery, that America is a deeply racist, horrible, no good, very bad place.
And that every problem in America is traceable to slavery and every good in America is traceable to slavery.
Historians, Pulitzer Prize winning historians have debunked the 1619 Project.
It is a bad piece of faux journalism.
It was crap from the beginning.
It is crap now.
So, Bret Stephens over the weekend wrote a column about how it was crap and how they had retconned the 1619 Project.
Again, there is so much gaslighting and Stalin-esque retconning of history here.
It's amazing.
And the original 1619 Project literally had a graphic of the term 1776 crossed out and over it superimposed 1619.
It literally said, what would it mean to consider 1619 the true founding of America rather than 1776?
When this came up, Nikole Hannah-Jones ran from it.
She's always metaphorical.
We never meant that 1776 didn't matter.
You literally wrote in your original essay, the Revolutionary War was fought, at least in part, to preserve slavery, which is a lie.
It is not true.
Okay, so it was a bad piece of journalism.
The New York Times has defended its bad piece of journalism.
But the fact that they even ran a piece by Bret Stephens criticizing the 1619 Project and their rewriting of their own history caused Nikole Hanna-Jones to absolutely meltdown.
Remember, Nikole Hanna-Jones is one of the prized.
Nikole Hanna-Jones, she gets to claim that she's a victim of discrimination in America while writing absolute horse s*** for the most prestigious paper in America.
And then winning a Pulitzer Prize for writing stuff that is blatantly untrue.
Wouldn't even do basic fact-checking on her own piece.
She won a Pulitzer Prize for that.
And then she claims that she's the victim of racism against black women by exactly the people who pay her, give her a job, and defend her bullcrap.
It's amazing.
It's an amazing, amazing thing.
So, how bad a person is Nicole Hannah-Jones?
So, Bret Stephens puts out this column.
And then the New York Times leadership put out a bunch of statements about how they love the 1619 Project.
They wanted to make her happy.
Dean Beckett put out a notice to the entire newsroom about the 1619 project in the wake of Bret Stephens' column. Quote, 1619 is one of the most important pieces of journalism the Times has produced under my tenure as executive editor. It changed the way the country talked about race and our history. It has given millions of Americans a new framework and a critical new date, 1619, for understanding the nation's past. Okay, first of all, Nikole Hannah-Jones has said it wasn't journalism.
Right?
She said that.
She actually said that it was a piece of historic rethinking.
It wasn't really journalism so much.
She said it has also generated a lot of debate.
This is Dean Baquette.
That's no surprise.
Work that boldly challenges prevailing views usually does.
A column this weekend in our opinion section took issue with the 1619 Project.
As the editor who runs the newsroom, I do not oversee opinion or the views of its columnists.
I do welcome opinion's role in hosting a wide range of views, including those that challenge our work.
This column, however, raised questions about the journalistic ethics and standards of 1619 and the work of Nicole Hannah-Jones, who inspired and drove the project.
That criticism I firmly reject.
Okay, so sure, we can have like an open-ended debate on the 1619 Project and whether Nicole Hannah-Jones is full of crap, but We can't do that.
Sorry, guys.
Actually, as it turns out, we don't want to do that because an open debate would mean that you offend Nikole Hannah-Jones.
And we are never allowed to offend Nikole Hannah-Jones.
Never, ever offend Nikole Hannah-Jones.
She is one of the holy.
She is one of the sainted.
She can speak whatever nonsense comes into her mind.
She can pretend that she is speaking truth about American history while overtly pushing lies.
After being told that they are lies.
And we will defend her.
This is the New York Times journalistic standard.
She says the project fell fully within our standards as a news organization.
Yes, this I believe.
I believe that the New York Times' news organization standards do include promoting overtly false material.
By the way, when you ever see the fact-checkers on Facebook or on Twitter fact-checking right-wing sites and claiming that they're doing things out of context, when are they ever going to fact-check the 6019 project?
At any point?
Of course not.
The New York Times is spending millions of dollars to promote the 1619 project on Facebook.
They spent literally, I believe, $3 million on like three ads for the 1619 project on Facebook, according to outside estimates.
But Dean Baquette says, in fact, 1619, especially the work of Nicole, fill me with pride.
Our readers, I believe our country, have benefited immensely from the principled, rigorous, groundbreaking journalism of Nicole and the full team of writers and editors who brought us this transformative work.
There's only one problem.
It's garbage.
It's garbage.
But the New York Times defended it.
That was not enough, guys.
Do you understand?
That's not enough for Nikole Hannah-Jones.
Dean Beckett put out a full statement talking about how much he wished to lend his body to the mercies of Nikole Hannah-Jones.
How much he wished to lend his institutional integrity to the predations of Nikole Hannah-Jones.
How he wished that he could lie down on puddles so Nikole Hannah-Jones could walk over him.
And Nikole Hannah-Jones was not having any of it.
She is the victim of a rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Oh yes.
According to the Washington Post, Hannah Jones was livid.
Okay, number one, this ain't 1894.
Kathleen Kingsbury and Brett Stevens know it in emails ahead of publication.
On the day the National Association of Scholars called for the revocation of her Pulitzer, she tweeted that efforts to discredit her work quote put me in a long tradition of black women who failed to know their places. She changed her Twitter bio to slanderous and nasty-minded mulatris, a tribute to trailblazing journalist Ida B. Wells whom the Times slurred with those same words in 1894. Okay number one this ain't 1894. Two, she ain't Ida B. Wells. Ida B.
Wells was reporting true things.
Nikole Hanna-Jones is overtly reporting false things.
Ida B. Wells was slandered for her race.
Nikole Hanna-Jones is being granted extra credit because of hers.
If Nikole Hanna-Jones were not of diverse ancestry, if Nikole Hanna-Jones were just a white lady working for the New York Times writing stuff that turned out to be overtly false, she would be on suspension right now.
Especially if she'd been warned prior that the stuff that she was writing was not true.
Hannah Jones now acknowledges that she should have been more careful with how she wrote certain passages, but my goodness.
Everything, everything for Nicole.
It must be wonderful to be able to simply reply to all of your mistakes and people pointing them out by claiming that it is an act of racism to point all of that out.
This is the wonderful thing about our woke culture, is that there are no limits to the woke culture.
A couple more examples on the woke culture.
This one is fully insane.
So there is a group called WNET Group.
It's the parent company of New York's public television stations.
They've now called for the resignation of the longtime chief executive, Neil Shapiro.
They say he has not done enough to improve working condition for employees, especially those of color.
So what exactly did he do?
Well, the big problem is that Neil Shapiro is not a person of color.
He is a former president of NBC News.
He has led WNET since 2007.
He apparently said that much of what has been written is inaccurate, misleading, or out of context.
WNET has a workforce of 380 people, 70% of whom identify as white, which, by the way, is about the same constituency as the country.
The country is in the mid-60s in terms of percentage white.
Apparently, people are very angry at Shapiro.
Why?
Why are they angry at Shapiro?
Not really because of what he has done with his personnel, but because of this.
You ready for this?
This is how crazy people are.
This is how crazy our woke race fascisti are.
On June 1st, six days after George Floyd's death, Shapiro released a statement on WNET.org.
Quote, racism is a cancer in the soul of this nation.
This has been an agonizing and painful week.
Our hearts go out to so many, especially so for our African-American colleagues.
At the same time, it is a reminder of what drew many of us to public media to help build a more informed country with equal justice for everyone based on understanding and mutual respect.
That sounds like a pretty woke statement, right?
Racism is a cancer in the soul of the nation, and we have to show that equal justice is still a reality for black Americans.
He's buying into the systemic American racism narrative, of course.
This was bad, the statement.
It was not good enough.
So let's see.
Well, let's play racial jeopardy.
Can you, woke jeopardy, here we go.
Can you name, for $400, what in that statement is the problem?
Doon, doon, doon, doon, doon, doon, doon.
Beep, beep, time's up.
Okay, so what is the problem in the statement?
According to the Inclusion and Diversity Council, they objected to Shapiro likening racism to cancer.
Quote, it is our view that this represents your profound misunderstanding of our nation's history and its current reality.
Racism is not an anomaly separate from us.
Rather, it is woven into the fabric of this country and in fact our own institution.
Amazing.
Okay.
Also, they did something else that's bad, right?
So first of all, you're not allowed to say racism is a cancer.
It's an inherent part of you.
It's not something that you can remove from.
It can never be removed.
It is inextricably intertwined with your identity.
Racism.
Which means, of course, it's never healable because it's part of who you are.
All you can do is shut up.
All you can do is shut up and listen.
My goodness.
Another point of contention between the Inclusion and Diversity Council, which again, these institutions, when they talk about inclusion and diversity, it doesn't sound like they're very inclusive, like of anything.
These are all Orwellian terms.
The Inclusion and Diversity Council got mad because there was a 36-second video the company posted on its social media accounts on June 3rd.
Set to a plaintiff piano, according to the New York Times, the video presented images of harmony between New York City police officers and citizens.
In one photo, a black man in a hoodie is seen fist-bumping a white police officer in riot gear.
In another, a white police officer marches in a protest next to a black woman wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt.
The montage also showed a black woman embracing a police officer.
The Inclusion and Diversity Council said the video displayed quote, bias in favor of the police and WNET removed it.
Removed it.
By the way, how crazy is this council?
So the company appointed a woman named Eugenia Harvey, an executive producer who had joined WNET in 2018, to a new position, Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer.
The Diversity Council criticized Harvey's promotion.
Why?
Well, Harvey is black, but they hadn't been consulted before the move.
They said, being a black woman is not enough of a qualification to head diversity at a company like ours.
This is a big deal.
It was not treated with proper respect.
We feared that Neil Shapiro was creating a shield for himself using a black woman as the shield.
Okay, I'm sorry.
If you choose to kowtow to this sort of stuff, you get.
You deserve every single thing that you get.
And frankly, I am experiencing nothing but Troy and Fred for people who cave to this stuff and then are getting it good and hard.
They deserve it.
Speaking of people who are getting it good and hard, Meredith R., who is the NBC top unscripted executive, she is now out.
She and NBC's former entertainment president have been accused of fostering a toxic workplace.
The inquiry sprang from a Hollywood Reporter report on allegations of homophobic, misogynistic, and racist behavior, especially within the network's reality division.
Sources say the investigator interviewed more than 60 current and former network employees and found that Arr's behavior was not in line with the standards the company expects, especially from its senior leaders.
Hilariously enough, who is Meredith Arr?
Well, according to Deadline Hollywood, go all the way back to May 2019.
In NBC's ongoing advocacy for representation in key production roles, they've launched the network's first below-the-line initiatives.
The two newly created pipeline programs focus on diversifying representation among production coordinators and production assistants.
The new annual initiatives are spearheaded by NBC's scripted programming co-presidents Lisa Katz and Tracy Picasta, alternative and reality group president Meredith R.
Oh, so they made her queen of diversity, and then it turns out she created a toxic work culture in thwarting diversity.
So everything's going great in diversity land.
Yep, the woke come for all.
You can feed the alligator hoping it will eat you last, but you will still be eaten and probably not last.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
We'll get to Mitt Romney's statements about Donald Trump.
We'll get to Donald Trump tweeting out about Joe Biden.
He tweeted, oddly enough, that, Immorally enough, that Joe Biden was a resident of an old-age home, which is, on a meme level, hilarious, and on a political level, it's a bold strategy when you need to win people above 65 to call your opponent a member of an old-age home, but, you know, I'm not the president.
We'll get to that a little bit later.
And a new proposal to reach herd immunity that has the left and the media being driven up a wall.
We'll talk to a high-ranking epidemiologist about it this afternoon, so make sure that you stick around for that.
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 Mixed by Mike Karomina.
Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
I think there are enough of those already out there.
We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else.
So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.
▲
Export Selection