Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 27, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:04:36

Grin And Barrett | Ep. 1124

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court, Democrats lose their minds, and the media continue to white knight for Joe Biden as we move one week from the 2020 election.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Your online activity should not be public.
	Protect yourself at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so in just a second we're going to get to everything news related.
	We'll get to all of the polls and everything else.
	First, let me talk to you about a really interesting sort of investment that is available to you.
	ART is one of the oldest and largest asset classes in the world.
	Usually it's reserved for the ultra rich.
	I mean, you're very, very wealthy, and now you can afford to buy a Renoir painting, and you have stored your wealth, and it's only going to accrue over time.
	But you can't afford a Renoir painting.
	Instead, what you need is Masterworks.
	It's the first platform that lets anybody invest in art at a fraction of the normal price.
	Now you can buy and sell shares of multi-million dollar paintings by blue chip artists like Andy Warhol, Basquiat.
	Banksy and more, as easily as trading stocks.
	Did you know that only 1% of day traders actually turn a profit?
	So why are so many of us mistaking picking stocks for serious investing?
	You really should instead put something in like a long-term proposition.
	What's a long-term proposition?
	Art, right?
	Blue-chip art.
	If that sounds unusual, you're not alone.
	But ultra-wealthy people have been doing this for literally centuries.
	From 2000 to 2018, art performed, outperformed the S&P by an incredible 180%.
	Imagine being able to invest in the very same paintings as millionaires and billionaires at a fraction of the cost.
	Go check them out at masterworks.io.
	It's an exclusive platform that makes it easy.
	As trading stocks online, their experts will create a custom portfolio to meet your investment needs.
	With masterworks.io, you don't have to choose between big risks and big returns.
	Sign up today with promo code Ben.
	You can skip the 25,000-person waitlist to get first dibs.
	Again, that is masterworks.io, promo code Ben.
	Hurry, this offer expires soon.
	See important information at masterworks.io, slash disclaimer.
	Go check them out right now.
	It's a really interesting and cool way to invest.
	Okay, so.
	Last night, Amy Coney Barrett, she of the Handmaid's Tale, seven kids, Catholic, obviously subservient to men, she joined the Supreme Court.
	So it was a straight party line vote.
	The only member of the Republican Party who voted against her was Susan Collins in Maine, who is running a losing race right now to Sarah Gideon in Maine.
	And so Barrett joined the court.
	There was a ceremony at the White House.
	People were very angry.
	There was a ceremony at the White House.
	But of course, there's been a ceremony at the White House for nearly every Supreme Court pick of the last 20 years.
	Ruth Bader Ginsburg had one.
	Sotomayor had one.
	Elena Kagan had one.
	This is nothing new.
	It's just people who hate Trump are mad that Amy Coney Barrett went to the White House at all.
	President Trump spoke at this event.
	He suggested this was a momentous day for the Constitution of the United States.
	This is a momentous day for America, for the United States Constitution, and for the fair and impartial rule of law.
	The Constitution is the ultimate defense of American liberty.
	The faithful application of the law is the cornerstone of our republic.
	That is why as president, I have no more solemn obligation and no greater honor than to appoint Supreme Court justices.
	And President Trump continued, and he said it was fitting that Amy Coney Barrett would fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. This, of course, was designed to lead to endless nights of screaming for Democrats who are very, very upset that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, of course, was on the wild left of the court, who decided that the Constitution was basically to be read like left-wing poetry, that she is going to be supplanted by Amy Coney Barrett, who obviously is a textualist and a constitutionalist and an originalist who believes that laws actually mean what they say and say what they mean. Here is President Trump speaking about Amy Coney Barrett
	and RBG. It is highly fitting that Justice Barrett fills the seat of a true pioneer for women.
	It's just a matter of time.
	Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
	Tonight, Justice Barrett becomes not only the fifth woman to serve on our nation's highest court, Now, of course, you're not seeing a lot of female solidarity.
	I just noticed this.
	I noticed this.
	From all the same people who said that there's a special place in hell for women who don't stand alongside other women, I'm noticing not a ton of sympathy for Amy Cody Barrett.
	Not a lot of talk about the historic nature of this very historic pic.
	And when it's Kamala Harris, who is picked for vice president because specifically Joe Biden said that he wanted a woman of color for his VP, then it's a very historic, historically big, historic pick.
	Even though we've had a female nominee for the Democratic Party as president, we have had a black president of the United States who is a Democrat.
	But Kamala Harris was the most historic of all historic people because of her historic, historic nature, because she's historic.
	Amy Coney Barrett, however, who is a mother of seven, joining the Supreme Court, that is not historic in any way, nor is that really worthy of note, because obviously she's a conservative, which means she's not a real woman.
	Real women back abortion, according to the left, and if you are not an overt backer of abortion, this means you no longer count in the female brotherhood.
	I will say, the sisterhood, it is pretty amazing that according to the left, What makes you a woman?
	What makes you a woman is being in favor of abortion or also possibly being a man.
	Right?
	If you're a man and you declare you're a woman, then you're a woman.
	But if you're a woman who is anti-abortion, then you're no longer a woman.
	So the standards, I feel, of femininity have really taken a weird left turn when it comes to the Democratic Party and to the left in the United States, culturally speaking.
	Clarence Thomas swore in Amy Coney Barrett, which of course was a pretty historic moment.
	You have a black justice on the Supreme Court swearing in a female justice on the Supreme Court.
	Which is a pretty cool thing, right?
	I mean, for all of those who believe that America is not diverse, that there are no opportunities open to Black Americans or to female Americans, that America is just one big land of glass ceilings, kind of a weird picture.
	Especially because President Trump is the one presiding over it.
	Clarence Thomas, of course, is appointed by a Republican.
	Amy Coney Barrett is appointed by a Republican.
	Here was Clarence Thomas swearing in Amy Coney Barrett.
	Didn't notice any talk about the historic, historic nature of this historic moment.
	Because again, for Democrats, historic is just code for things we like.
	And If it's a thing they don't like, then it just doesn't count.
	But it is kind of historic that you have a black man who is the son of sharecroppers swearing in a Catholic mother of seven.
	That seems like kind of a cool thing, no?
	Worthy of note by the mean?
	Nope, nope.
	That's just kind of a normal day in Washington, D.C., I guess.
	Okay, here's what that looked like.
	I, Amy Coney Barrett, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
	that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
	So help me God.
	So help me God.
	Okay, so that is a pretty cool thing.
	There she was being sworn in.
	Then she spoke briefly and she pointed out once again that her judicial philosophy suggests that it is not her job to legislate from the bench.
	And once again, a thousand wails were heard across the land where Democrats said, no, no, no.
	The job of the Supreme Court is to do all of our bidding.
	And if the Supreme Court refuses to do our bidding, then we don't want the Supreme Court to exist at all.
	As we will see, this is going to become a major talking point for many Democrats as they talk about packing the Supreme Court.
	Here is Amy Coney Barrett, Explaining what used to not have to be explained, which is that the job of a judge is not to actually make the law, but to interpret the law as written.
	Honestly, this is like having a plumber speak about how the job of a plumber is not to create wholly new plumbing systems in a house, generally, right?
	That's for rare occasions.
	Generally, the job of a plumber is to simply fix your toilet, right?
	I mean, the job of a judge is to interpret the law as it is written.
	It is not to completely remake the Constitution every time a case comes before them in a mold that they would wish to see.
	Here's Amy Coney Barrett saying what used to be basically assumed.
	It is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences.
	It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give in to them.
	Federal judges don't stand for election.
	Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people.
	This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government.
	So, um, I don't know why that had to be said, except that the left doesn't believe that that's true, so it does actually have to be said.
	Well, over in the Senate, obviously Democrats were fighting mad.
	Mitch McConnell spoke before the vote, and he said, listen, elections have consequences.
	You guys violated every single norm.
	And it is important to recapitulate what Democrats have done about judges over the years, because they're now claiming that this was unprecedented, as we will see.
	Democrats violated every single norm about judges and then they are upset when they have to live by the new norms they created.
	Democrats decided that it was worthwhile to bork Robert Bork, going after him on the basis of judicial philosophy and suggesting that because he believed that it was his job to interpret the law rather than make the law, this meant that he was a racist, sexist bigot.
	And so they borked bork.
	Then they attempted to sink Justice Clarence Thomas with bizarre allegations about jokes about pubic hairs on Coke cans.
	Then they decided that it would be worthwhile to filibuster judges, right?
	That had not been done before.
	They decided they were going to filibuster Miguel Estrada back when George W. Bush was president.
	Then they decided to kill the judicial filibuster.
	They killed the filibuster with regard to judges in 2013 because Harry Reid didn't like that Republicans were now using a tool that he had created, along with other Democrats, in order to stop Bush judges from getting appointed.
	So Republicans started using that tool, so he killed the judicial filibuster.
	And then Republicans finally just rammed through judges on the basis of all of these various heresies by Democrats.
	Also worth noting in that little litany right there, the Democrats also decided to falsely allege that a Supreme Court judicial nominee for the Republicans was a gang rapist.
	That one happened in the last couple of years.
	So here's Mitch McConnell saying, you guys violate every norm.
	And then you're surprised when we use the baseline democratic process in order to confirm a judge just like every other judge has ever been confirmed in American history.
	Here is Mitch McConnell.
	Our Democratic colleagues keep repeating the word illegitimate.
	As if repetition would make it true?
	If you just say it often enough, does it make it true?
	I don't think so.
	We're a constitutional republic.
	Legitimacy does not flow from their feelings.
	You know?
	Legitimacy is not the result of how they feel about it.
	You know, you can't win them all and elections have consequences.
	OK, first of all, really enjoying cocaine, Mitch.
	Paraphrasing my catchphrase there.
	Legitimacy does not care about your feelings.
	But that is, of course, exactly right.
	And Democrats are now complaining that this whole process is illegitimate.
	You're out of court.
	You're out of order.
	This whole court is out of our Al Pacino and injustice for all.
	Right. This is he is correct about this.
	Legitimacy does not spring from the feelings of the Democrats.
	This is the way that judges have been nominated and confirmed since the beginnings of the Republic.
	A final corollary for this on the Republican side, Ted Cruz correctly points out that Trump has delivered on his promise, which is true.
	Donald Trump promised that he was going to deliver textualist, originalist judges, and he has, for the most part, done that.
	And where he's made a mistake, he's made a mistake that other Republicans have made, but Trump has tried his damnedest.
	Here is Ted Cruz pointing that out.
	Today, President Donald Trump delivered on one of the central promises he made to the American people, to nominate principled constitutionalists to the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	Today, the Republican majority in the United States Senate delivered on one of the principal promises we made to the American people, to confirm principled constitutionalists to the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	To everyone who values and cherishes the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
	Today was an important milestone.
	And that, of course, is true.
	The fact that Trump has now put in three Supreme Court justices is a very good thing.
	And the fact that those Supreme Court justices could provide a bulwark against the predations on the Constitution that the left is about to perform, that is certainly a very good thing.
	One of the actual side results of this is that if John Roberts sides with the court's liberals, let's say that John Roberts decides to side with Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
	And so you have a 5-4 majority for the so-called conservative justices.
	Well, guess who gets to assign the opinions then?
	Clarence Thomas, because Clarence Thomas is the most senior associate justice on the originalist side of the aisle.
	So this does radically shift the court.
	It does make a difference in how the court makes decisions.
	And this is scaring the living hell out of Democrats, because Democrats have always seen the court as either a green light for all of their most bizarre policy preferences, or as actively fomenting left-wing change they cannot get done via the legislature.
	They've either seen the court as a place where They can rewrite the law post-facto in order to justify what they would like to do, a la Obamacare, or they've seen the court as an obvious progressive tool of social change, as in Obergefell, pushing forward same-sex marriage, even though the state legislatures have not gone along with same-sex marriage yet.
	This is how they view the court.
	And if the court is taken away from them, well, then they will take the ball and go home.
	They're now talking about blowing up the court, which is no shock at all.
	What they are most afraid of, of course, is that the court will rule along textualist lines.
	This scares the living daylights out of them.
	And they become very clear about this.
	Ed Markey, who is the senator from Massachusetts and a crazy socialist Bernie Sanders type, he gave a speech yesterday in which he said that originalism is just discrimination.
	Now, originalism, for those who don't know anything about judicial philosophy, originalism is the very simple proposition that the Constitution of the United States is to be read as it was written.
	That it doesn't magically change over time.
	When the Constitution of the United States says that you have a right to keep and bear arms, for example, what that phrase means, keep and bear arms, meant what it meant when it was written.
	That it didn't magically transmute into what Ed Markey would like it to say.
	That when the Constitution of the United States protects freedom of the press, it means what it meant at the time.
	That when the amendments of the Constitution are interpreted, they mean what they said.
	That the amendment that allows women to vote allows women to vote.
	That the amendment that preserves equal rights for black Americans preserves equal rights for black Americans, right?
	These are amendments to the Constitution and they are to be interpreted as written, just like every other law is meant to be interpreted as written.
	It is so weird that folks on the left believe that judges really are just supposed to be the great moral arbiters of our time, even though they are not elected, even though they are life tenured.
	If you really believe that, we should just have an aristocracy.
	We should just have a moral aristocracy unanswerable to the people, because these are obviously the best qualified and most moral among us.
	So here is Ed Markey suggesting originalism is merely discrimination.
	Originalism is racist.
	Originalism is sexist.
	Originalism is homophobic.
	For originalists, like Judge Barrett, LGBT stands for let's go back in time.
	A time when you couldn't marry who you loved.
	When you couldn't serve in the military if you were trans.
	A time when rights were not extended to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, or intersex individuals.
	Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.
	That is a very stupid man.
	I mean, either he's stupid or he's dishonest.
	There really is no third choice right there.
	Because all originalism says that the law means what it meant when it was written.
	And by the way, if you want there to be trans people in the military, all you have to do is pass a law.
	That's all you have to do.
	There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids trans people from serving in the military.
	If you want same-sex marriage, all you have to do is pass a law.
	There's not a single Supreme Court justice who has ever suggested, right, left, or center, that the Constitution forbids same-sex marriage.
	The Constitution does not forbid same-sex marriage.
	The Constitution may not have mandated same-sex marriage, but there is a difference between the Constitution mandating something and the Constitution forbidding something, and this broad gray area in American life where the Constitution is silent and does not speak, and where things are left to the purview of the state and local authorities.
	So what Ed Markey is trying to say is that if you are a judge and you don't do what Ed Markey likes, it's because you're a bad person, you see.
	This is the same disgusting argument you hear with regard to free speech.
	So if I say that I'm pro-free speech, and I'm in favor of people being able to speak freely without punishment, then this is like the argument that says, if you're pro-free speech, this means you're in favor of people shouting the N-word.
	No, I'm very much against people shouting the N-word.
	I'm very much against the N-word.
	I think it's evil.
	I think the use of it is evil.
	I also believe that you have a right to do some evil things in the United States because of freedom of speech.
	Does that mean I'm in favor of people misusing their rights?
	No.
	Okay, but this is the argument that says if government allows you to do a thing, or if the Constitution allows you to do a thing, therefore the Constitution must be bad.
	So if the Constitution was written at a time when same-sex marriage was not legal, this means that faithfully interpreting the Constitution makes you an emissary of all those ideologies.
	Whereas if you were really, truly good, what you would do is you would just discard the Constitution and do whatever you wanted, what you knew to be right in your own heart.
	There's only one problem.
	That is not the role of judges.
	We have entire elected legislative bodies for this.
	We have a president of the United States for this.
	We have elected branches of the United States government and state governments and local governments to do the will of Ed Markey.
	Judges are not made for that.
	But again, if you view the court as your personal Preserve, a place to ram through your personal policy agenda.
	You get quite mad when it turns out that the court is not going to do any of that.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how you protect yourself online.
	So it is pretty obvious, pretty damned obvious at this point, that social media sites are now seeking to target conservatives.
	Social media sites are seeking to limit the amount of information and the kinds of information that you can see.
	Places like Twitter were supposed to be an open platform.
	Instead, their content moderators are upgrading particular content and downgrading other content and putting in particular fact checks designed for you because you're bad and you're conservative.
	Instead of letting social media sites revoke your right to free speech, how about revoking their right to your data?
	You could deactivate all your social media accounts or you could continue to use social media and just not let them use your data to monetize.
	This is why I use ExpressVPN.
	If you've ever wondered how free to access sites make all their money, the answer is they track your searches, video history, and everything you click on, and then they sell your valuable data.
	When you use ExpressVPN, you anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your IP That makes your activity more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers, and ExpressVPN could not be easier to set up.
	You tap one button on your phone or computer, you're now protected.
	It's finally time to say no to censorship.
	Take back your online privacy at expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Visit my special link, you'll get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free.
	Again, that's e-x-p-r-e-s-s vpn.com slash ben.
	ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to protect your data today.
	OK, so Democrats absolutely lose it because they don't believe in the traditional vision of the courts.
	They don't believe in Federalist 78, where Alexander Hamilton called the Supreme Court the least dangerous branch, where he declared the judiciary has neither force nor will.
	And that if it were disposed to start exercising its will instead of simple judgment, it would lose its reason for being.
	They just disagree with Alexander Hamilton.
	They think that the court should basically just be another Democratic super legislature.
	And so now they are very, very, very upset.
	And they are suggesting that this thing is illegitimate.
	Illegitimate.
	By illegitimate, what they actually mean is, we don't like it.
	So Nancy Pelosi tweeted out, President Trump and Senate Republicans have committed an act of supreme desperation.
	First of all, this is such a strange reading.
	Amy Coney Barrett is not striking down Obamacare.
	It's not a thing that is going to happen.
	In fact, she was on a moot court and she didn't strike down Obamacare.
	So Democrats are immediately going to results-driven jurisprudence.
	You see what they're doing here?
	The idea is Amy Coney Barrett is bad because she's not giving Democrats what they want.
	And it's not that she's not going to faithfully interpret the law.
	It's that if she faithfully interprets the law, they might not get what they want.
	This is why Democrats are going nuts today.
	Democrats are going nuts, similarly speaking, over a 5-3 vote along ideological lines last night.
	There's a case called Democratic National Committee vs. Wisconsin State Legislature.
	The Wisconsin State Democratic National Committee had been pushing to allow mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrived as much as six days after the polls closed on Election Day.
	A lower court had shot down that plan.
	Justice Roberts joined the four conservative justices in refusing to overturn their decision.
	The lower court's ruling will now stand.
	The late ballots will not be accepted.
	So Wisconsin cannot count mail ballots that arrive well after the polls close, which makes perfect sense because obviously it's going to be difficult to tell who is voting after Election Day and who is not.
	Democrats are very upset about this.
	Again, they see this as a political move.
	According to Ian Millhiser, who is one of the idiots over at Vox.com, he says, what is surprising is two concurring opinions by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, each of which takes aim at one of the most foundational principles of American constitutional law, the rule that the Supreme Court of the United States has the final word on questions of federal law, but the highest court in each state has the final word on questions of state law.
	This division of power is implicit in our very system of government.
	So they're saying the Supreme Court should just overrule the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
	But that's ridiculous.
	The Supreme Court lets the states speak where the Constitution does not speak.
	And the Constitution of the United States certainly does not mandate that votes be counted six days after the election.
	But again, Democrats get angry at the court when they don't get what they want from the court.
	Not when the court violates the Constitution, but when they don't get what they want.
	Senator Kamala Harris tweeted out similarly to Nancy Pelosi.
	We're not going to forget this.
	We won't forget this, says Kamala Harris, quote.
	Today, Republicans denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.
	OK, it is perfectly legitimate.
	And by polling data, Amy Coney Barrett was popular.
	A plurality, if not an outright majority, of Americans wanted to see her confirmed.
	She says, all in their effort to gut the Affordable Care Act and strip health care from millions with pre-existing conditions.
	We won't forget this.
	Again, this is just myth-making.
	There's nothing in Amy Coney Barrett's record that suggests that she's about to overturn Obamacare.
	It's just nonsense.
	It's just absolute nonsense.
	But again, scare the living hell out of Americans to justify everything you're about to do is the name of the game.
	Okay, understand that this is where this is going.
	In order to get what they want, Democrats are now basically suggesting that the other side is engaged in radical evil, and this now justifies what we're about to do.
	If we pack the court, well, that was your fault.
	If we decide that we are going to get rid of the Senate filibuster altogether, well, that's your fault, guys.
	You started it.
	Now, again, the irony of this argument cannot be overstated.
	Democrats started this with regard to judges.
	They did.
	It was Democrats who violated every prevailing norm for generations in order to get judges they want and to reject justices they didn't like.
	But now their claim is that Republicans have violated the final norm and therefore all norms go away.
	Good news!
	All the norms are gone and they can do everything they've wanted to do for a very long time.
	We'll get to this in just one second.
	AOC making that mostly clear.
	We'll get to that.
	By the way, I guess I'm not supposed to call her AOC anymore.
	She says it's disrespectful to call her AOC, which is incredible because when it was RBG, then that was a mark of affection, right?
	You said RBG, that was a mark of affection.
	If you say AOC, then apparently this is disrespectful.
	So the Honorable Congresswoman, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, First, from working to playing hard.
	When you start every morning in Tommy John underwear, you are that much more comfortable so you can do everything better.
	That is why Tommy John underwear doesn't just have customers, they have converts.
	Once you try Tommy John, you will not go back.
	It really is fantastic stuff.
	With breathable, lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric, with four times the stretch of competing brands, it moves with you.
	Tommy John underwear comes with a non-rolling waistband for the perfect fit.
	The legs never ride up.
	You're covered with their no wedgie guarantee.
	Tommy John underwear is listed on GQ's latest 10 Essentials with Kevin Hart.
	They have over 96% four-star plus reviews, over 12 million pairs sold.
	There is a reason for that because once you try Tommy John, I promise you, you're not going to want any other pair of underwear.
	They are indeed fantastic.
	They're also incredibly durable.
	They go through the wash A lot.
	And they feel great every single time.
	Because Tommy John underwear feels so good.
	So free.
	So barely there.
	It's like going commando but with no risk attached.
	Their best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee means no risk.
	Try Tommy John if you don't love them.
	They are free.
	I think a great pair of underwear.
	You don't think about how that's important until you have a bad pair of underwear, and then you realize, oh yeah, that's important.
	Get much more comfortable at tommyjohn.com slash ben.
	Say 15% on your first order.
	Say 15% right now at tommyjohn.com slash ben.
	That's tommyjohn slash ben.
	I love their product.
	My wife loves their product.
	Tommy John's got stuff for everyone.
	Go check them out.
	Tommyjohn.com slash ben.
	Okay, so AOC brings forth the threat.
	She says that it's time to pack the court.
	But she doesn't just say it's time to pack the court.
	She explains why it's time to pack the court.
	Again, this is also part of the broader argument.
	I'm sorry, I called her AOC again.
	What I meant is the Honorable Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez won a middle school science contest.
	D. So Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, she tweeted out, expand the court.
	Now, to be fair, she's been claiming this since some long before this nominee.
	She wants the court expanded because she wants the court to basically just be a rubber stamp for all of her policy preferences.
	Then she tweeted out, Republicans do this because they don't believe Democrats have the stones to play hardball like they do.
	And for a long time, they've been correct.
	But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal.
	But a response isn't.
	There is a legal process for expansion.
	There is a legal process for expansion.
	It has not been used since 1869.
	So, the idea here is that Republicans violated a norm by confirming a justice nominated by a member of their own party in the presidency.
	And therefore, you get to explode the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
	Maybe just to troll AOC, or I'm sorry, the Honorable Congresswoman, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D, $93 trillion Green New Deal.
	Maybe in order to troll her, Mitch McConnell should just expand the Supreme Court now.
	I mean, they've got the majority.
	Why not?
	Why not just expand?
	Like 300 judges, let's just do it right now.
	Expand the Supreme Court, blow up the entire institution.
	Because if Democrats can do it, so can Republicans.
	These rules apply to everyone.
	But the underlying theme here is the one that's important because this is the argument Democrats are going to make as they violate every norm and destroy every aspect of institutional government in the United States.
	That is, Republicans are so violative of norms.
	They are so cruel.
	They are so, they are so revolutionary that our counter-revolution is necessary in order to stop the Kulaks.
	We have to stop the Kulaks because if we wish to march forward, we have to stop them from blowing up the bridges.
	The saboteurs.
	They're saboteurs, so if we gulag them or execute them, politically speaking, well then, all of that is called for.
	That's just what we're doing.
	Nancy Pelosi is on board as well.
	She says, maybe we should expand the courts.
	Maybe it's time.
	It was in 1879.
	In 1876, there were nine justices on the court.
	Our population has grown enormously since then.
	Should we expand the court?
	Well, let's take a look and see.
	And that relates to the nine district courts.
	Maybe we need more district courts as well.
	Oh, so maybe we should just add more courts for everybody.
	Okay, so we're just gonna violate all of the norms naturally.
	My favorite is that in order to cast this as unprecedented, Chuck Schumer just keeps using the same line over and over.
	So back in 2017, he declared that when the Trump tax cuts went through, it was one of the darkest days in American history.
	Well, apparently yesterday was also one of the darkest days in American history.
	Now, there've been a lot of dark days in American history.
	Like there was that time that FDR interned 100,000 Japanese Americans.
	There was that time when, for a hundred years, Jim Crow ruled in the South.
	There was that time when lynching was fairly commonplace across the South.
	There was that time when slaves were held.
	Americans were held in bondage in the United States.
	I feel like there were some dark days in American history.
	Like, if I were just going to look at, like, darkest days in American history and list them off, you know, like, I don't know, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the killing of JFK.
	Like, there are a fair number of bad things that have happened in American history.
	I don't think confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett makes the top Any.
	I'm pretty sure that that one's not on the list, but according to Chuck Schumer, two of the darkest days in American history were the Trump tax cuts and Amy Coney Barrett joining the Supreme Court.
	I feel like the word darkest does not mean what you think it means.
	We're now in Princess Bride land.
	Here's Chuck Schumer saying a silly thing.
	My deepest, greatest, and most abiding sadness tonight is for the American people and what this nomination will mean for their lives, their freedoms, their fundamental rights. Monday, October 26th, 2020, it will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231 year history of the
	United States Senate.
	Spoiler alert, it won't.
	I mean, spoiler alert right there.
	Not gonna happen, Chucky.
	Not really a thing.
	Okay, but again, the goal here is to proclaim that this is wildly out of bounds, that the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett is so wildly out of bounds that everything has to be broken.
	Every breaking of every norm is now absolutely justified.
	So in order to ratchet that up, you have to ratchet up the hysteria.
	So for example, Chris Hayes on MSNBC, he suggested that Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation led to the deaths of 100,000 Americans.
	I'm not kidding.
	That's a thing that Chris Hayes actually said.
	And that is they have participated in a project that has led to the deaths of probably 100,000 Americans who didn't have to die.
	Congratulations.
	You got that done, too.
	That also can't be reversed.
	They can't come back.
	We can't undo that.
	That's the other accomplishment here, Judge Barrett.
	They traded one for the other.
	They traded those lives for this justice.
	And they had a party about it in the Rose Garden, too, now.
	But this is again, it's part of the broader narrative.
	So the broader narrative is that the Republicans broke all the things.
	So now we get to completely break all the things.
	Republicans broke the vase.
	So now we're just going to grind it into sand.
	So Ezra Klein has a piece over at Vox.com.
	Ezra Klein has decided that America's constitutional structures are bad and of no consequence.
	And the reason they're bad and of no consequence is because they're not perfectly democratic.
	This is the same case that idiot Jamal Bowie at the New York Times has made, which is that we should get rid of all constitutional checks and balances, that we should just have a pure majoritarian mob rule in the United States because all of these other tools of American democracy and American republicanism, all they do is somehow dampen the will of the people.
	All they do is hamper the ability of the will of the people to be spoken thoroughly and effectuated properly.
	So Ezra Klein writes back in September, Mitch McConnell is changing the Democratic Party.
	He says Senate Democrats are learning from Mitch McConnell.
	He will go down as one of the most consequential Senate leaders in history, said Ezra Klein.
	His legacy isn't defined by bills passed or pacts struck.
	McConnell's legislative record in terms of both his accomplishments and those he shepherded through as leader is meager.
	He's passed tax cuts, cut regulations, confirmed judges.
	He failed to repeal Obamacare, shrink or restructure entitlements, or pass infrastructure or immigration reform.
	Historians will not linger long over the laws McConnell passed.
	As McConnell himself has said, his most consequential decision was an act of negation, blocking Merrick Garland from being appointed to the Supreme Court.
	McConnell's legacy, rather, will be transforming the United States Senate into a different institution, reflecting a different era in American politics.
	Historically, the Senate has been an institution unto itself, built around norms of restraint and civility, run according to informal understandings and esoteric rituals designed around the interests of individuals rather than the stratagems of parties.
	This is the Senate McConnell claim to revere, naming Henry Clay, the so-called Great Compromiser, as his model and promising a restoration of old traditions.
	This is the Senate McConnell has eviscerated through his own actions and those he has provoked in the Democrats.
	Ah, you see, you see, when Democrats do things that violate norms, it's all because McConnell's mean, you see.
	See, this is it's the same excuse my kids use when my daughter wallops my four-year-old son.
	And I say, why did you do that?
	She always says, well, he started it, right?
	So the rule here is that if Democrats violate every single norm from here on out, it's all because Mitch McConnell, evil cocaine Mitch, started all of this.
	He's a vessel for the currents and forces of his time, says Ezra Klein.
	What sets him apart is his fulsome embrace of those forces, his willingness to cut through the cant and pretense of American politics, to stand athwart polarization, yelling faster.
	Oh, it's McConnell who made polarization happen faster.
	Wasn't Harry Reid, after all, who destroyed the judicial filibuster?
	It wasn't the Democrats who decided they were going to filibuster judges in the first place.
	It's all Mitch McConnell, you see.
	They started it.
	They did it first.
	And because they did it first, that means that we can violate every norm.
	None of the norms matter anymore.
	It's a short line from there to Ian Millhiser, idiot, Vox.com, writing how an anti-democratic constitution gave us Amy Coney Barrett.
	It's time to blow up the Constitution, you see.
	Because it turns out that the Constitution of the United States allows senators who are not elected by population, you see.
	It allows senators from sparsely populated states to select Supreme Court justices, and that's bad.
	So that means it's time for the Senate to go.
	According to Ian Millhiser, while pro-Barrett senators control a majority of the Senate, they represent nowhere near a majority of the entire nation.
	Indeed, the senators who voted against Barrett represent 13,500,000 more people than the senators who voted for her.
	I delivered this figure using 2019 census estimates of each state's population.
	You can check my work using this spreadsheet.
	Okay, first of all, your work is stupid because it turns out that the senators who represent those states don't represent 100% of the population of those states.
	So if somebody won a 51-49 election, counting that entire state population as one party or the other party is idiotic.
	But beyond that, Even if that were not true, even if you are going to count it the way Milhiser is, that is the purpose of the United States Senate.
	It was designed to create a check and balance against overweening federal power done from the most populous centers of the United States.
	But according to Ian Milhiser, it is time for the Senate of the United States to go.
	According to Amy, according to the illustrious AOC, sorry, the Honorable Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D, dancing.
	According to the Honorable Alexandria Cortez, it's time to pack the courts.
	It's time to break all of the norms.
	All of the norms!
	It's time.
	Because Mitch McConnell has created this bad, very bad, terrible world for us.
	And as it turns out, this argument the Democrats are putting forth, which is that we can do whatever we want because Republicans started it, It now applies to everything, up to and including riots.
	As we will see, there were big riots in Philadelphia last night.
	Deadly riots in Philadelphia last night.
	But don't worry, the only way to stop those riots is to elect Democrats because, of course, those are somehow Trump's fault.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that you need a great couch.
	So, you've heard me talk Ad nauseum on this program about my Helix Sleep Mattress.
	My Helix Sleep Mattress is fantastic.
	It is the only way I get sleep with small children.
	But Helix has now gone beyond the bedroom and started making sofas.
	They just launched a new company.
	It's called Allform.
	They're making premium customizable sofas and chairs shipped directly to your door.
	So, what makes an all-form sofa really cool?
	For starters, it is 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.
	I have kids.
	All of that.
	Super important.
	You can pick the sofa color, the color of the legs, sofa size and shape to make sure it is perfect for you and your home.
	They've got armchairs, they've got loveseats, all the way up to an eight-seat sectional, so there's something for everyone.
	You can always start small and then buy more seats later on if you want your all-form sofa to grow and change with you when you move.
	All-form sofas are also delivered directly to your home with fast free shipping.
	In the past, if you wanted to order a sofa, it could take weeks or even months to arrive, and you'd need someone to come and assemble it in your home.
	Allform takes just three to seven days to arrive in the mail.
	You can assemble it yourself in a few minutes with no tools necessary.
	I've got an Allform sofa.
	It's a three-seat sofa with chaise in the sand color with espresso legs.
	It's so comfortable, by the way, that when guests sleep at our house, very often they would prefer to sleep on the couch rather than even sleeping on the bed.
	That's how good these things are.
	If getting a sofa without trying it in store sounds risky, don't need to worry.
	You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it.
	That is more than three months.
	To find your perfect sofa, check out allform.com slash Ben.
	They have a forever warranty, literally forever.
	Allform is offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash Ben.
	That is allform.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	allform.com slash Ben.
	Okay, we're gonna get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that this has been an absolutely insane year.
	It feels like America's coming apart, and that's because philosophically we are.
	There are two different philosophies of the United States.
	One believes that the government is there to provide you privileges.
	All you have to do is surrender all of your liberties.
	The other believes in the founding philosophy of the United States.
	One philosophy believes that the culture of the United States ought to be one of dependence, one of demanding.
	The other suggests that American culture is reliant on entrepreneurialism and tolerance for other people's freedoms.
	One philosophy suggests that American history is evil, the other that American history is good.
	My book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, is about all of this.
	It is going to outlast the election, no matter what happens in the election, because this battle is going to outlast the election.
	I get the question all the time, what's a book I can give to my kids, give to my grandkids, to ensure that they understand what is at stake, so they can ensure That they understand what America is all about and what exactly is being fought for in politics.
	My book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, is that book.
	I'm very proud of it.
	I think it is a very important book.
	I think it's an easy read, very capable of being read by kids who are in high school and certainly by adults.
	Go pick up a copy right now.
	How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	Also, the presidential election, it's almost here.
	We have an amazing day of programming just for you.
	Our live stream, it starts on Tuesday, November 3rd at 3 p.m.
	Eastern, 12 p.m.
	Pacific.
	We're gonna be with you all day long.
	It features special guests, live interviews, and more, leading up to a very special episode of Saved by the Bell, in which we learn about substance abuse.
	No, actually, it leads up to a very special episode of Backstage, where we will be covering the results with you in real time.
	Even better, join DailyWire right now, get 25% off with code ELECTION, so you can watch all of our election coverage live on our Apple TV or Roku app.
	Again, that's DailyWire, and get 25% off with code ELECTION.
	No, Jeffrey Toobin, not co-direction.
	Co-delection.
	Get 25% off.
	Members get our articles ad-free.
	Access to all of our live broadcasts and show library.
	The full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Exclusive readers 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 You left us here as tumblers with your membership as well as early, sometimes exclusive access to new Daily Wire products.
	So watch the election with us at dailywire.com and get 25% off your Daily Wire membership with code election when you sign up today.
	This is the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All right. So again, the argument from the left is everything is justified because Trump is bad and Republicans are bad. And so everything is justified.
	And this extends to the realm of rioting.
	It does.
	And apparently the only way to stop all of this is, of course, to concede to the left.
	It's a beautiful circular logic here.
	Republicans caused us to do bad things.
	The only way to stop us from doing bad things is to elect us to do bad things.
	But that can only be stopped if you elect us.
	And then we do bad things because Republicans do bad things.
	And so the circle goes.
	So overnight, there were multiple reports in Philadelphia that 30 police officers had been injured in riots following a fatal police shooting.
	Police responded to a domestic call just before 4 p.m.
	on Monday.
	Video shows officers with guns drawn in a neighborhood.
	Initial reports said that a man named Walter Wallace was armed with a knife and refused calls to drop the weapon.
	You can hear officers yelling, put the knife down, multiple times.
	Videos show the officer shooting this person multiple times.
	Wallace was pronounced dead at the scene.
	A statement released from the mayor and police commissioner said the shooting was under investigation.
	It does not indicate whether it was confirmed that Wallace was armed.
	Apparently he was.
	Mayor Jim Kenney said, I've watched the video of this tragic incident.
	It presents difficult questions that must be answered.
	I recognize the video of the incident raises many questions, says police commissioner Daniel Outlaw.
	No, it doesn't.
	It raises zero questions.
	You can see the video.
	The person at issue is holding a knife.
	He refuses to put it down.
	He approaches the police officers.
	When he is about 10 feet away, refusing to put down the knife, they shoot him.
	Because you know what you don't have to do when you are an officer with a gun?
	Wait for the person to come six inches from you and then stab you in the frickin' face.
	That's a thing you don't have to do as a police officer.
	In fact, you know what the advantage of a gun is?
	For those who need this little lecture.
	You know what an advantage of a gun is?
	You can shoot people from far away.
	You know what negates the advantage of a gun?
	When the person's right up next to you, you stupid asses.
	I don't under- like, so the people, what were they supposed to do?
	Throw their gun at him?
	The guy was approaching them with a knife.
	We have now reached the point where the shooting doesn't even have to be remotely unjustifiable to justify rioting in our streets because America is so obscenely racist apparently.
	Apparently a police sergeant was run over by a truck.
	So you got a lot of delightful people engaging in this sort of violence.
	All I can hope is that rural Pennsylvania shows up in droves, in droves, to elect Donald Trump to prevent this sort of stuff from being okayed by city authorities.
	According to the police department, at least 12 Philly police officers were hospitalized with various injuries.
	One of them was a 56-year-old female sergeant.
	She was a 56-year-old female sergeant.
	Okay, where's the defend all women crowd?
	56-year-old female sergeant hit by a black Pick up truck in stable condition with a broken leg.
	Other officers were injured and bricks were thrown at them.
	But you know, they're just bricks.
	No big deal.
	They're just bricks.
	Who cares?
	Just bricks.
	But you know what?
	If you hate all this, if you hate wokeness, if you hate the woke left and the radical left, the only way to stop all of this The only way to stop all of this is to vote for Joe Biden.
	See how this works?
	Because the right has driven the left so crazy that now the only way to stop the left from being crazy is to elect the left to power.
	The only way to stop the wokeness is to not elect Donald Trump, is to elect Joe Biden, who is enthralled to the radical left.
	This is the logic of a columnist who, I mean, very frequently, actually, like Yasha Monk over at The Atlantic.
	He has a piece today titled, Trump is the best candidate for the illiberal left.
	If you hate wokeness, you should vote Joe Biden.
	As one Twitter commentator put it, if you hate your headache, you should stab yourself directly in the eye with an ice pick.
	If you hate wokeness, you should elect Joe Biden.
	All right.
	Well, let's hear it out.
	A number of influential commentators who firmly opposed Donald Trump in 2016 recently announced their intention to vote for him in 2020.
	Nearly all of them, including James Lindsay, Daniel Pletka, and Ben Shapiro, blamed liberalism on the left.
	As Shapiro said on his popular show, he's planning to vote for Trump because Democrats have lost their effing minds.
	Accurate quote.
	Oh, you think?
	You mean like how Joe Biden refuses to condemn Antifa?
	To this day?
	And nobody seems to ask a follow-up question?
	We'll get one million questions from our compliant media about Donald Trump and white supremacists, even though Trump has condemned white supremacists at this point.
	1,223,221 times at last count.
	But Joe Biden still has not achieved the signal moral feat of condemning Antifa, a group that goes around firing laser pointers at federal officers' eyes.
	Yasha Monks says parts of the left now seek far-reaching censorship in social media, advocate for employees to be fired for expressing conservative opinions, and are openly hostile to free speech.
	The likely future mayor of Portland, Oregon has appeared to glorify mass murderers such as Che Guevara and Mao Zedong on the campaign trail.
	But the fact is that Trump presents a much greater danger to key constitutional values and does more than anyone else to lend apparent credibility to extreme forms of protest, as well as an unremittingly negative appraisal of America.
	Voting for Trump to stem the rising tide of liberalism is about as pure an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face as political life can afford.
	Ah, you see, this is all Trump's fault.
	Because the liberals were not in charge until Donald Trump came to office, which neglects the fact that, once again, for the millionth time, the world did not begin spinning when Donald Trump became president.
	Illiberalism on the left was very much a thing while Barack Obama was president of the United States.
	It was rising then.
	It rose dramatically in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's loss.
	There were riots in the streets while Barack Obama was president of the United States and Barack Obama was tut-tutting violence against police officers.
	Violence against police officers is bad.
	It's not good.
	It's systemic racism.
	It infects all of our police departments.
	Illiberalism on the left is not a new thing.
	But according to Yasha Monk, the only way to stop it is to elect people who are immediately going to cave to the illiberals on the left.
	Okay, well, yes, that is true.
	As most Americans at all attentive to politics can recite a long list of Trump's verbal attacks on democracy, Trump has called for both Hillary Clinton, his competitor in 2016, and Joe Biden, his current adversary, to be locked up.
	He claims the 2016 election was marred by fraud, even though he won, and now refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose.
	Okay, well, yes, that is true.
	And also it is true that he has done none of those things.
	None of those things have happened.
	As it turns out, Trump, as I've said one... I keep repeating myself here, but it's true.
	Donald Trump, on his epitaph, it will say, 45th President of the United States, he said a lot of bleep.
	He did a lot of good stuff.
	He also said a lot of bleep.
	We are well aware, but I'm not going to treat every Trump pronouncement as serious when he is an utterly unserious person in his pronouncements.
	Okay, but according to Yasha Monk, he says, apologists who say Trump barks much louder than he bites make an important point.
	While Trump's Twitter feed would make any dictator proud, the actions of his government have been less nakedly autocratic.
	Trump has not tried to imprison Biden or shut down the New York Times.
	And although he has repeatedly denounced the judiciary, he has mostly proved willing to be bound by their rulings.
	Yes, but if Trump's words are worse than his actions, his actions have still been outrageous.
	Trump has repeatedly interfered in the process of awarding federal contracts and approving corporate mergers to punish companies that have dared to criticize him.
	Yes, that is bad.
	You're right.
	It is bad.
	And you know who would continue to do all of that stuff?
	Biden.
	Because Barack Obama literally did that.
	Barack Obama, in the early years of his administration, said to members of the banking community, the pitchforks are outside.
	You have to do what I say.
	I'm the only thing that stands between you and the pitchforks.
	That's an actual thing said by President Barack Obama directly to members of the banking community in 2009.
	He has made illegal payments, possibly using campaign contributions to women with whom he has had affairs.
	Okay, well, illegal payments to people you have affairs with is disgusting.
	It also is not a threat to the constitutional order.
	He has fired inspectors general of federal departments when they have uncovered wrongdoing by members of his administration.
	Okay, that is under controversy.
	Also, it is true that Barack Obama did that.
	So, here's the thing.
	If you're going to claim that Donald Trump is a unique threat to liberty that is not posed by the Democratic Party, you can't keep saying things where I can say Barack Obama did the same thing.
	You have to create a point of differentiation.
	Barack Obama fired a prosecutor, an independent prosecutor, who was investigating his friend Kevin Johnson, then the mayor of Sacramento, for corruption.
	And Barack Obama was no wilting lily when it came to using the powers of government in corrupt ways.
	He has invoked a fake national emergency to redirect federal funds toward a political pet project wall at the southern border, as opposed to Barack Obama, who literally just rewrote immigration law himself.
	He has used the resources of his office to boost companies of friends and allies, has channeled significant sums of money into his own properties.
	Okay, that last one about the Secret Service spending money at his hotels.
	Is it yucky?
	Yes, it is yucky.
	Is it perfectly within the line of swamp creature crap that presidents and politicians have done for a long time?
	Again, I don't see how that is any more yucky, really, than Joe Biden engaging in a process whereby his son and his brothers are enriched with use of his personal name while he is vice president of the United States.
	These attacks on America's constitutional traditions don't mean Trump is about to pronounce himself emperor for life, nor do they mean he will manage to stay in office if he loses the upcoming election, but they should make removing him from office the top priority for any voter who is genuinely concerned about the rise of illiberal forces.
	Okay, well, now you're going to have to explain why I shouldn't be worried about the rise of illiberal forces when the left that pats them on the head is in power.
	Many of the most worrying tendencies, says Yasha Monk on the left, stem from two intellectual mistakes.
	The first is to focus so tightly on the country's flaws that its strengths become invisible and its institutions dispensable.
	The second is to believe the right poses such an imminent danger, any form of resistance against it is justifiable, even if it involves violence.
	Trump disagrees with both of these mistakes, but because he is genuinely dangerous and extraordinarily polarizing, he makes it harder for establishment institutions to hold their ground against these fallacies.
	Ah, you see, because Trump is so unique, Democrats have lost their minds.
	So get rid of Trump and Democrats will immediately snap back to being Clintonian liberals.
	Okay, this neglects the entire history of the Democratic Party from Barack Obama on.
	They stopped being Clintonian liberals a long time ago.
	Bernie Sanders was nearly their nominee in 2020.
	This is not the party of Bill Clinton.
	If Bill Clinton ran on his 1992 platform right now, he'd probably be running as a Republican.
	Hey, this is not a party of liberalism.
	It is not a party of open debate.
	It is a party of censorship, and it is censorship approved at the highest levels.
	Kamala Harris is the left-most senator in the United States Senate.
	She is not some raving moderate.
	Joe Biden is not a raving moderate.
	He was a left-wing member of the Senate before he was vice president.
	As vice president, he was extremely left-wing, and he showed no, like, seriously, no compunction about going along with Barack Obama's various excesses.
	But the basic idea here is that if you worry about liberalism on the left, then you should vote for Joe Biden.
	Yashamonk concludes, according to commentators such as Shapiro, progressives already hold power in universities and the mainstream media in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. If they also capture Congress in the White House, they would gain virtually unified control of American politics and culture. But fears of a Biden presidency leading to a woke takeover misunderstand the way public opinion moves in America.
	Because Trump's ample failings have given the most misguided claims of the far left a superficial veneer of plausibility, Trump himself has been the far left's biggest ally.
	So in other words, Trump drove the left crazy, so get rid of Trump and they will stop being crazy.
	I don't believe this for one heartbeat.
	I don't.
	It preceded Trump, it will go on after Trump.
	And if you believe that Kamala Harris and the illustrious, honorable Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D. Jeremy Corbyn, That she is going to just go away.
	That the Democratic Party is going to go back to being a mainstream liberal party.
	You got another thing coming.
	And by the way, I'm not willing to bet on the good graces of strangers, okay?
	I'm not Blanche Dubois, politically speaking.
	I'm not going to sit around going, I rely on the kindness of strangers as the Democratic Party runs roughshod through the political system.
	Not when they are openly threatening to do all this stuff.
	They don't go back to moderation.
	That's not a thing that's going to happen.
	The moderate Democratic Party is gone.
	Barack Obama being portrayed as a moderate within his own party is evidence that the moderate Democratic Party is completely gone.
	Once you suggest that Donald Trump is responsible for every evil, conservatives are responsible for every evil, And that all you have to do is hand them power?
	It's an act of political blackmail.
	There's been no sister soldier speech from Joe Biden anywhere in here, and it's not coming, because it's no longer inside the Democratic Party.
	They're not capable of it.
	Okay, meanwhile, the lie continues that COVID is all Donald Trump's fault, that if it had been for, if it had not been for Donald Trump, many hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive.
	And it is amazing how openly political and nakedly political this particular narrative has become.
	So Donald Trump, his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said over the weekend that we are not going to control the pandemic.
	This is a statement of fact.
	I will note that Joe Biden said in debate with Donald Trump that Donald Trump has to stop with the happy talk.
	He said, Donald Trump, he needs to stop with all of this happy talk.
	We're dying, man.
	Come on, man.
	We're dying, man.
	Tell the people the truth, man.
	Come on, man.
	Mark Meadows told people the truth.
	This pandemic is not going to be brought under control by lockdowns.
	This pandemic is going to continue.
	And you can social distance, and you can wear a mask, and you can go about your daily life.
	And that is about all you can do.
	And we have new treatments that are coming online.
	We have antibodies that are coming online, antibody treatments, therapeutics that are coming online.
	We'll have a vaccine by the end of the year.
	But this ain't gonna stop anytime soon.
	This was treated by the media as throwing up a white flag.
	They said, oh, you're throwing up a white flag against the virus.
	So, okay, so let me just get this straight.
	If you say the same thing that Joe Biden said, which is hundreds of thousands of people will die by the end of the year, and you're a Democrat, this is you telling hard truths to the American people.
	If you're Mark Meadows and you say we can't control the spread of the virus because it is a contagious disease, then this is you throwing up the white flag.
	Donald Trump went after Joe Biden yesterday.
	He said, you know, you keep saying that I'm waving the white flag on COVID.
	Joe Biden has waved the white flag on life.
	Dude's living in a basement.
	No, no, he has.
	He's waved a white flag on life.
	He doesn't leave his basement.
	This guy doesn't leave his basement.
	He's a pathetic candidate, I will tell you that.
	Okay, well, he is not wrong about that.
	If there's ever been, honestly, if Joe Biden goes on to win, at that point, you do have to suggest that fate has chosen Joe Biden, because seriously, the economy is going great guns up until the pandemic.
	The pandemic hits, and not only does it destroy the economy in the United States, not only does it throw the Trump administration into even further levels of confusion, it also allows Joe Biden to run an entire campaign doing zero things and welding himself physically to a couch.
	I mean, that's an amazing thing.
	People are saying he's run a smart campaign.
	He hasn't run a campaign.
	He hasn't even stumbled the campaign.
	Joe Biden has not moved from within a 30-foot radius of his sofa for like six months.
	And if he wins, that is solely due to the COVID pandemic.
	So, I mean, Trump is not wrong about all of this.
	But again, the myth-making for the Democratic Party is that if it were not for the evil Trump administration, all problems would have been solved.
	So Hillary is back, which is just what we all needed.
	I think what America needed was more Hillary Clinton.
	I'm very excited.
	So she was talking with Kara Swisher.
	Kara Swisher, she spends her days basically just following people like me on Twitter and then complaining that people like me exist.
	She literally said to Susan Wojcicki a few years ago that if she could, she would ban me from YouTube because her son watches the show.
	Hey, Kara Swisher's kid.
	How's it going?
	Kara Swisher!
	Kara Swisher interviewed Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton said that she was born to ha- The saddest thing about her not being elected president is she was born to handle the pandemic.
	Yeah, I'm sure.
	I'm sure that Hillary Clinton was born to handle the pandemic.
	I'm sure young Hillary dreamed about handling pandemics.
	Here is Hillary Clinton, back from the political graveyard.
	Do you think a woman president in the United States would handle the pandemic better?
	I have no doubt, especially if it were me.
	No, I mean, I was born for that.
	OK, that is the stupidest question I maybe have ever heard.
	Do you think that a female would have handled the pandemic better?
	Would a female have handled the pandemic better?
	First of all, define female, Cara.
	I think we always have to start with that premise.
	Because we have now learned that females do not exist.
	There literally is no definition of female.
	It is anybody who identifies as a female.
	So what material quality of being female would make you better at handling a pandemic?
	Are you saying, Kara Swisher, that women are better caretakers than men?
	Because that seems kind of sexist to me.
	Are you saying that women organize things differently than men?
	Because that, frankly, seems kind of stereotypical.
	But I love that Hillary Clinton's like, yes, if it had been me, I would have handled the pandemic so much differently.
	How?
	Nobody has an answer.
	Again, this is the myth-making.
	The good news is that for Democrats, basically they just say, all the things that we would have done normally would have handled the pandemic.
	So Jane Fonda, Who is, of course, one of our nation's illustrious minds.
	Jane Fonda, who when she was not climbing aboard a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun and doing propaganda work on behalf of an evil regime.
	She was doing her workout tapes and tightening the buns of millions of women across America.
	Now she's interviewing Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, who is most famous for playing silly video games online while lots of people watch.
	And the illustrious— I keep doing this over and over and over.
	I'm sorry.
	The Honorable Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
	D, Twitch.
	Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
	She says, you know what would have been better?
	You know what would have solved the pandemic if we passed the Green New Deal?
	Yep.
	Spending $93 trillion on stupid bull— That definitely would have solved the pandemic.
	Good answer, AOC.
	One of my favorite things about democratic policies is that you ask them, okay, how would you have done this differently?
	And they're like, all the things I normally do would have done it differently.
	Like Hillary Clinton, just by being Hillary Clinton would have solved the pandemic.
	According to AOC, the Green New Deal solves all of the things.
	Here is AOC, the Honorable Congresswoman, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, D, Rolling Stone cover.
	Do you think that had there been a Green New Deal in place in January 2020, COVID-19 would have been much easier to contain and our healthcare system would have been much more resilient?
	You know, I absolutely think so, for a lot of reasons.
	One is that if we had passed a Green New Deal by January of this year, that would mean that we had a political establishment that respects science, that is willing to mobilize and make major investments to protect the American people.
	The utter insane stupidity of this.
	If we had passed a Green New Deal, that would have meant that we respect science.
	We respect it.
	Science.
	It's very respectable.
	And the way that we know we respect science is women don't exist, babies don't exist until they are born.
	And also, that climate change is an existential threat to humanity.
	All of humanity.
	It's an existential threat.
	You know, people, oh, the Green New Deal means we respect science.
	God, she's just a slogan machine.
	That's all she is.
	She's a bumper sticker slogan machine.
	And this is considered the solution to COVID.
	If you believe this stuff, honestly, you deserve what you get.
	I'm going to keep going with that HL Mencken quote.
	Democracy is the theory that Americans deserve to get what they elect, good and hard.
	You deserve this.
	I mean, honestly, you, the American people, you decide to elect this to power.
	We're all getting what you deserve.
	Is where this is going.
	OK, meanwhile, worthy of note, the media continue to cover for for everything Democratic, including Joe Biden.
	Of course, I will say that there have been a couple of outstanding examples of the media covering for the Democratic Party.
	The use of fact checkers as the Democratic Party cover story is incredible now.
	So there's been this lie that's been going around for years that these fact check sites are completely unbiased.
	PolitiFact and FactCheck.org and Snopes.com.
	They're not politically unbiased.
	They are all staffed by members of the left.
	And this is becoming perfectly obvious in every possible way.
	YouTube.
	Hey, YouTube is now using FactCheck.org.
	They're now using independent fact checks from Snopes.com to back Joe Biden.
	So if you search on YouTube for Joe Biden and fracking, A fact check comes up.
	An independent fact check comes up from Snopes.com.
	Did Biden propose a ban on fracking?
	Rating, mostly false.
	So now if you even search for things about Joe Biden, YouTube is preemptively white knighting on behalf of Joe Biden.
	That's exciting.
	By the way, the same thing does not apply to the Steele dossier.
	If you search Steele dossier, there's no fact check suggesting anything about the Steele dossier, even though that thing is a piece of Russian disinformation.
	So that was one just note on fact-checking.
	The fact-check organizations that are being used to launder left-wing values into social media, YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, they're all using these left-wing fact-check organizations to push propaganda.
	They say, well, if the fact-checker says it's not a fact, we obviously can't push it.
	OK, who fact checks the fact checkers?
	The answer is nobody, because the left will not allow that.
	They just call it a fact check when it really is just a left wing opinion piece.
	My favorite example of this, though, was not the YouTube thing.
	It was a a fantastic fact check yesterday from Meg Kelly at the Washington Post.
	So I'm going to play you a clip.
	This is a clip of Joe Biden suggesting that George W. Bush is still president.
	OK, that that is what it suggests.
	Then we'll get to the fact check.
	Because what I'm saying, according to the Washington Post fact checker, is a four Pinocchio claim.
	Four Pinocchios!
	If I say that this is Joe Biden mixing up George W. Bush and Donald Trump, that is a four Pinocchio claim.
	Here's the entire clip.
	If someone is undecided or maybe thinking about not voting, why should they vote and why should they vote for you?
	Well, first of all, the reason they should vote is that there's a lot on the ballot this year.
	I mean, this is the most consequent, not because I'm running, but because who I'm running against.
	This is the most consequential election in a long, long, long time.
	And the character of the country, in my view, is literally on the ballot.
	What kind of country are we going to be?
	Four more years of Georgia.
	George, he's gonna find ourselves in a position where if Trump gets elected, we're gonna be in a different world.
	Okay, so four more years of George.
	Okay, and Jill, if you can't see this, because you're listening, Jill mouths the word Trump.
	She mouths it, right?
	So she knows that he has gaffed and that he has said George W. Bush.
	Okay, she mouths it in the middle of the clip.
	Here is the Washington Post fact check.
	No, Biden did not confuse George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
	The video clip that Republican National Committee Rapid Response Director Steve Guest tweeted late Sunday night seemed to be the stuff of opposition researchers' dreams.
	Just 27 seconds long, it appeared to show Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden criticized former President George W. Bush as the person he is running against.
	The snippet seemed to be evidence of a nasty theory the Trump campaign has been pushing for months.
	Joe Biden is senile.
	Okay, that... The facts.
	The I Will Vote concert was hosted by comedian George Lopez and political commentator Ana Navarro.
	The segment begins with what looks like a fancy Zoom call.
	Navarro and Lopez are each in a separate frame, as are the Bidens and a sign language interpreter.
	Lopez asked Biden why undecided Americans should vote and vote for him.
	As Biden begins his answer, the frames of Navarro and Lopez are dropped from the screen.
	And then there's the long quote from Joe Biden.
	Then he stutters, four more years of George.
	George, he are going to find ourselves in a position where if Trump gets elected, we are going to be going to be in a different world.
	Or was it, four more years, George, George, we, it's hard to tell.
	Okay, this is the Washington Post Fact Checker.
	By the way, seeming to make fun of Joe Biden's stuttering, which is kind of gross, right?
	With his caption, guest answers an unspoken question of just who is George, suggesting that Biden confused Trump with former president George W. Bush.
	But viewers have no idea that Biden could have been referring to George Lopez, who had originally asked the question.
	Biden spokesman Andrew Bates said, he was addressing George Lopez, the interviewer, as is a common practice.
	No, he clearly is not.
	I'm sorry, he is not.
	If your defense to this is we need four more years of George Lopez, then I'm going to need to know exactly how you think that makes sense.
	Four more years of George are going to find ourselves in a position where if Trump gets elected.
	OK, so the Washington Post gave it four Pinocchios to suggest that Joe Biden mixed up Donald Trump and George.
	By the way, Joe Biden has mixed up whether he's running for Senate or President of the United States.
	He's mixed up which university he went to.
	He's mixed up which state he's in.
	And he has mixed up before people in the audience.
	He, for years, has been doing this sort of stuff.
	He literally said during the Obama administration, he said to a man who was wheelchair bound, he asked him to stand up at an actual event.
	That is a thing that happened.
	Joe Biden's been doing this for years.
	But it's a Washington Post fact check now.
	So if I say this, then maybe YouTube will slap a fact check on me for playing you the entire clip and then explaining to you the entire context.
	I will be fact checked now.
	The use by the media of these fake fact checkers in order to stop anybody from disseminating in a different point of view is truly ugly and it is just left-wing white knighting.
	End of story.
	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 Mixed by Mike Karomina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	Justice Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed and sworn in to the Supreme Court.
	Joe Biden admits to committing voter fraud, and a crazy lady pestered her dying father into voting Democrat.
	And then, more riots in Philadelphia just days before the election.

▲