All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
57:45
Why They're Cancelling Dr. Seuss | Ep. 1206
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Chris Cuomo finally realizes that covering his brother Andrew for CNN is a bad idea.
Dr. Seuss is canceled in Virginia, and Joe Biden pursues reparations.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Don't let big tech track what you do.
Anonymize your web browsing at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
As I'm speaking about, the fact is you can't trust the big tech bros with your information.
They don't like you very much.
In fact, there's a wide variety of institutions all seeking your data and then want to use that data to monetize and simultaneously use the data against you.
Instead, why don't you just hide your data?
It is your data.
As private entities, tech companies can operate pretty much as they choose.
Protect your personal data from Big Tech with the VPN I trust for my online protection, ExpressVPN.
When I use ExpressVPN, my connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers so these companies can't see my IP address at all.
My internet activity becomes anonymized.
My network data is encrypted.
I recommend ExpressVPN to anyone who uses the internet.
So, you know, everyone.
The best part?
You don't need to be tech-savvy at all to use ExpressVPN.
You just download the app on your phone or computer, you tap one button, and now you are protected.
So, protect your internet activity with the VPN I use every single day.
Visit expressvpn.com to get three extra months free on a one-year package.
That's EXPRESVPN.
ESSVPN.com slash Ben to get three extra months for free.
ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to learn more.
Go check them out right now.
ExpressVPN.com slash Ben get started protecting your data.
It is after all your data.
When you go to ExpressVPN.com slash Ben, you get three extra months free on that one year package.
Okay, so Andrew Cuomo continues to be under fire for basically being really creepy and a weirdo.
And if he did any of this stuff in the private sector, he would be fired tomorrow.
So the latest story to break about Andrew Cuomo, frankly, this is the least disturbing of the story.
So we had a couple of stories already.
One was from a person named Lindsay Boylan, who worked with Cuomo.
She suggests that basically he called her up to his office for the express purpose of trying to kiss her.
And then he gave her an unwanted kiss.
We've had People suggest that he has harassed them in the past, made lewd comments to them.
A 25-year-old woman came forward and said that while she was working for him, he asked questions about whether she had sex with older men and whether she had a tramp stamp and this kind of stuff.
Okay, well, this particular story is the third in a line.
This is from the New York Times.
Anna Ruch had never met Governor Andrew Cuomo before encountering him at a crowded New York City wedding reception in September 2019.
Her first impression was positive enough.
The governor was working the room after toasting the newlyweds, and when he came upon Ms.
Rooch, now 33, she thanked him for his kind words about her friends.
But what happened next instantly unsettled her.
Mr. Cuomo put his hand on Ms.
Rooch's bare lower back, she said in an interview on Monday.
When she removed his hand with her own, Ms.
Rooch recalled, the governor remarked that she seemed aggressive and placed his hands on her cheeks.
He asked if he could kiss her, loudly enough for a friend standing nearby to hear.
Ms.
Rooch was bewildered by the entreaty, she said, and pulled away as the governor drew closer.
She said I was so confused and shocked and embarrassed.
I turned my head away and I didn't have words in the moment.
This account comes after two former aides accused Cuomo of sexual harassment in the workplace, plunging his third term into turmoil as the governor's defenders and Cuomo himself strained to explain his behavior.
He put out a statement suggesting that this was misinterpreted as an unwanted flirtation.
He said, to the extent anyone felt that way, I am truly sorry about that.
Now, here's the weird thing.
All of this is caught on picture.
And first of all, for Andrew Cuomo, not a great picture.
So being lit directly like Satan is a little bit on the nose, I feel like, here.
He looks like he's completely red.
Like whatever the lighting here is, it's a problem for him.
And this woman has on her face the same exact expression as Peloton Lady, right?
It looks as though Andrew Cuomo is about to perform the scene from The Dark Knight in which the Joker asks Maggie Gallagher if she wants to know how he got that smile.
It's very weird, like very, very weird.
Now, there are gradations of behavior that are, you know, the end of your career.
The gradations of the behavior range from, you know, Harvey Weinstein, like he actually raped people, to an unwanted kiss, to he asked her and she said no, and then he let go of her head.
Now, number one, as the practicing Orthodox Jew in your life, let me tell you, you shouldn't be touching people without their permission.
Like, ever.
Okay?
That is also the moral thing to do.
I am not somebody who does this.
In fact, I've been mocked in the past for doing the Keanu Reeves hover hand in pictures, right?
I don't want to touch people without their permission.
And so in long rope lines of people where I'm taking pictures with people, you'll very often see my hand kind of above their shoulder because I don't really want to touch people, right?
It's not really a thing.
And I think, frankly, that politicians and public figures should engage in the Keanu Reeves hover hand.
He's sort of famous for this.
Andrew Cuomo is not just a hugger.
He's a kisser, apparently.
And he goes directly in for grabbing this lady by the head, which is a very aggressive and weird move.
Now, is that the kind of thing that a governor should lose his gubernatorial seat over?
Should he be impeached over that?
I mean, typically speaking, I would say no.
I would say that this is bad behavior.
Bad behavior.
There are gradations of bad behavior.
And him making weird comments to women about eating the whole sausage, making like lewd suggestions or weird jokes.
That does not seem to me this kind of behavior that you lose your gubernatorial seat over.
However, Andrew Cuomo has set a standard.
And Andrew Cuomo's standard is that there is no due process.
Andrew Cuomo's standard is the Me Too, Believe All Women standard.
And if you set yourself up as a backer of that standard, you deserve everything you get when that movement comes for you.
Because the revolutionaries have no friends.
They have only obstacles.
And when Andrew Cuomo became an obstacle, Andrew Cuomo is in serious trouble right now because there's every major politician in New York, all of them have their long knives out for this guy.
They hate him.
Okay, here's the reality.
They hate Andrew Cuomo.
He's a jackass.
Everybody in New York knows this.
If you're a New York Democrat, you know that Andrew Cuomo is a jackass.
And any opportunity to get rid of him is the opportunity to get rid of him right now.
A year ago, all this stuff would have come out.
Everybody would have ignored it.
A year ago, he was very useful as a tool against Donald Trump.
But now Donald Trump is no longer president.
And that means that Andrew Cuomo, he gotta go.
Right, it's perfectly convenient to get rid of Andrew Cuomo, because at the same time, you're getting rid of a guy that nobody really likes very much, because he's very aggressive and very nasty, and he's a jerk to everybody.
And also, you're clearing the way for the Letitia Jameses of the world, and the AOCs of the world, and that's something that the Democratic Party would like to do, frankly.
Not only that, you also get to, quote-unquote, re-establish the standard that you care about Me Too, because one of the things you may have noticed about the Me Too moment is that it has wavered in its strength and consistency.
At the very beginning, it was like, well, you know, Harvey Weinstein is real bad, and if he's a Democrat, so be it, he's still gotta go.
And then it started to waver just a little bit, right?
If it was Tara Reade accusing Joe Biden of something, well, then we just sort of black out those accusations.
They don't matter very much.
In other words, Me Too is a standard that is subjected to the importance of politics.
You'll notice, for example, that the Democratic Party tossed Al Franken off the back of the bus and then backed the bus up over him.
Why did they do that?
They did that because they were in the middle of a race in Alabama in which Roy Moore was running.
Roy Moore was the Senate candidate in Alabama who had been accused of trolling the food court for 14-year-old girls like 30 years ago.
And so the Democratic Party wanted to set a standard.
And the standard the Democratic Party wanted to set was, at least we're not those guys.
And that was when all of the Al Franken stuff came out.
You know, the pictures of him hovering over the breasts of a sleeping woman and making some sort of weird, funny pose over it.
Until Al Franken lost his job in the Senate over that, and five minutes later, they were like, oh, that was a mistake, because they thought Roy Moore was going to win in Alabama, and then they would be able to hang that around the neck of the Republicans like an albatross for the rest of time.
It turns out Roy Moore lost, and then they're like, oh, we shouldn't have got rid of Al Franken.
So here's the thing.
Politics is always the name of the game here.
Andrew Cuomo is going down right now, not because of any of this.
He's going down because of the nursing home scandal, but they can't say it's because of the nursing home scandal, because then that would be to admit that they should have known all along.
It would be to admit that they blew this story from the very beginning.
They would have to admit that their approach to COVID has been dead wrong the entire time, because if it turns out that Andrew Cuomo's real sin here is not his behavior with women, yes, that's sinful, and yes, it's gross, and it's yucky, but that, in and of itself, would not get him canceled.
Right, the only thing that would really, truly, justifiably get Andrew Cuomo kicked out of office would be him covering up the fact that his policies led directly to the deaths of elderly people in nursing homes.
They can't, but they can't admit that.
Because then that would be to admit that they, because we all knew that.
See, here's the thing.
We all knew in the middle of last year that Andrew Cuomo had been participating in cover-ups in New York.
We knew that his nursing home policy was garbage.
And we knew, more than anything else, that his nursing home policy stood in direct contrast to the nursing home policy of the person that the left hated most in terms of governors, Ron DeSantis in Florida.
DeSantis had protected the nursing homes and then told everybody else, you know what, you got to live like free Americans, make your own decisions.
And guess what?
Right now, New York is ranked number two in deaths per million and is seeing an uptick in cases, by the way.
And Florida, we're doing just fine.
Florida is ranking number 27 with the second oldest population in America after Maine, which really means the oldest population in America because Maine has seven people in a moose.
So the reality here is that the media have decided to cover the Andrew Cuomo sex stuff because they don't want to cover the Andrew Cuomo nursing home stuff.
The actual scandal.
So instead, they will make it about, look at how honest we are.
We're so honest and now we're covering this stuff.
I mean, we couldn't have covered it last year.
This is what Chris Chaliza of CNN said.
We couldn't have covered this last year.
We didn't know about this stuff last year.
How would we have known that he was sexually harassing the help?
By the way, there are a bunch of great tweets over the course of the last couple of years about the LoveGov that are coming back to haunt people now.
Remember that for the last year or so, the establishment media decided that Andrew Cuomo was a sex symbol.
That he was the one that all the ladies wanted to be with.
I mean, my personal favorite tweet in all of this was Katie Hill, the disgraced California congresswoman who was shtipping half her staff.
She had the whole thing about like how she was attracted to Andrew Cuomo.
It's like, well, yeah, you could see that one coming, couldn't you?
But again, there is a reason that the media have decided to cover this right now.
And what you're seeing is that when conservatives complain about media coverage of Cuomo, The media will say two things.
One, we didn't know about any of this sex stuff a year ago, and now we do know about it.
So we're honest, guys.
We're objective, don't you see?
We're doing the journalism-ing that you guys should... How could you criticize our journalism-ing when we're the ones covering the story?
Because this story is not actually the super important story.
The sex stuff.
Okay?
Like, it's important, and there should be an investigation, and it's bad.
The behavior of Andrew Cuomo in, again, there are gradations to each of these incidents.
Like calling a woman up to your office works for you so you can kiss her is bad behavior and may be fireable behavior.
Going up to a woman at a wedding and asking if you can kiss her is not actually fireable behavior.
Grabbing her head is a different story.
There are gradations to all this stuff, but there is one thing.
That not only should Andrew Cuomo have been tossed out of office for, he should have been tossed out of office last year for it, because we all knew about it back in May, which is that he was lying about his nursing home stats and that his policies in nursing homes had gotten a lot of people killed.
And by the way, it is amazing that the media ever chose Andrew Cuomo as their guy.
Why?
Because very early on in the pandemic, you will remember, Andrew Cuomo shut down the state very late, very late.
If you go back to his comments in early March, they sound exactly like Trump's comments in early March.
It was only later in March that Andrew Cuomo started to be like, look at the lockdown, Gov.
So again, everything being about politics and nothing being about truth is a very simple rule to watch in action.
And you can see it most of all when it comes to the media coverage from his bro.
I will never say he's Fredo because I've heard from Chris Cuomo that it is somehow racist to call him Fredo, like the dumber brother from The Godfather.
I don't know how.
He said it was like using the N-word, which is a weird take.
But in any case, not Fredo over here.
Chris Cuomo, he was doing for a year, for a long year, a comedy Smothers Brothers routine with his bro.
He was doing this routine where he'd bring him on and he'd have a giant Q-tip.
My brother is the greatest governor in America.
I'm so proud of him.
He's just amazing.
Chris Cuomo was doing this for a year.
And CNN not only let them cover it this way, they promoted it.
It was, look at Chris Cuomo interview his own brother.
Now, there were those of us who said, isn't it a conflict of interest that you're covering your own brother?
Like, isn't that just a little bit of a conflict?
I mean, this is a time when news is kind of important and we want to know what the best policies are.
And we want to know about his actual performance as governor.
And instead we're getting mom liked you best routines from Chris and Andrew.
Hey, well now, now is Chris Cuomo going to cover the fact that his brother is enmeshed in the sexual harassment scandal?
No, don't be silly!
That would be a conflict of interest, you see.
See, here's the thing.
It's not a conflict of interest when you're praising your brother.
It's a conflict of interest when you would have to criticize your brother.
So here is Chris Cuomo last night saying, I can't cover any of this.
It's a conflict of interest!
His journalism-ing comes out again.
Obviously, I'm aware of what's going on with my brother.
And obviously, I cannot cover it because he is my brother.
Now, of course, CNN has to cover it.
They have covered it extensively, and they will continue to do so.
I have always cared very deeply about these issues and profoundly so.
I just wanted to tell you that.
There's a lot of news going on that matters also.
So let's get after that.
Oh my God.
Like the fact that CNN thinks they can get away with this.
I mean, I'm going to repeat the words very slowly for those of you who continue to think Andrew Cuomo is a good governor and vote for Democrats thinking that they actually care about you.
I'm gonna repeat this very slowly for you guys, okay?
Quote.
Direct quote from Chris Cuomo about his brother Andrew in Mesh in a Sex Scandal.
So, question.
Were they brothers last year?
I seem to remember them being brothers last year.
In fact, I believe that they were brothers since their youth.
I don't think they recently became brothers, like in the last couple weeks or so.
And was Andrew Cuomo kind of relevant to the political conversation at any point in here?
I feel like probably he was.
Was he not?
I mean, they were literally talking about replacing Joe Biden on the ticket with Andrew Cuomo if Biden should falter.
So I feel like it was kind of relevant.
But here's the thing about our media.
They don't give two damns about the truth.
They don't care.
Okay, they don't.
All it is about for them is the narrative.
The narrative last year is that Andrew Cuomo was good, and Donald Trump was bad.
And now the narrative is that Andrew Cuomo is bad, and therefore, we have to, as a matter of journalistic objectivity, not allow Chris to cover his brother.
Amazing, amazing stuff.
And let me just say this.
When it comes to the rest of the CNN crew over there, They are all Chris Cuomo when it comes to the Democratic Party.
As Chris Cuomo is to Andrew Cuomo, so CNN is to the Democratic Party.
They're brothers in arms, they agree with the agenda, they're sycophants, and they're covering the people that they love.
That is the reality of the situation, which is why you shouldn't trust their takes on a lot of these particular issues.
Okay, in just a second, We're gonna get to the continuation of the fragmentation of our culture, and I wanna talk a little bit about what's gonna go down over the next week or so, because next week, the trial of Derek Chauvin in the alleged murder of George Floyd is going to begin, so we'll get to what is going on in Minnesota.
It's getting spicy over there.
First, spring is springing, and it's the perfect reminder to tidy up and get your life in order.
Why not start by protecting your family with life insurance?
Policy Genius can help you compare top insurers in one place and save 50% or more in the process.
Once you find your best option, the PolicyGenius team will set up your new policy for you and answer any questions you have along the way.
Here's how you can get started.
First, head on over to PolicyGenius.com.
In minutes, you can work out how much coverage you need and compare quotes to find your best price.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare policies from as little as $15 a month.
You might even be eligible to skip that in-person medical exam.
Since their licensed agents work for you, not the insurance companies, there is zero hassle.
If you hit any speed bumps during the application process, PolicyGenius will take care of everything.
That kind of service has earned Policy Genius a five-star rating across thousands of reviews on Trustpilot and Google.
The best part?
All the benefits of Policy Genius, the comparison tool, the handling of paperwork, the unbiased advice, totally free to use.
So, while you are tidying up around the house this spring, why not get your life insurance organized as well?
It could save 50% or more by comparing quotes, feel good knowing that if something happens, your loved ones will be taken care of.
Go to policygenius.com to get started.
Policy Genius, when it comes to insurance, it's nice and quite important to get it right.
Okay, so, Over in Minneapolis, all hell is about to break loose over the next couple of weeks.
According to the Daily Wire, Ash Scow reporting, the Minneapolis courthouse that will feature the trial connected to George Floyd, who died while in police custody on May 25th, 2020, has been, quote, turned into a veritable fortress, according to the New York Post.
Jury selection begins on March 8th for the trial.
That is where Derek Chauvin is charged with murdering Floyd.
The Post reports that Hennepin County District Court has, quote, been ringed with concrete barriers, security fencing, and barbed wire.
This is in addition to increased security in the area, including Minneapolis Police, Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies, Minneapolis State Troopers, Minnesota State Troopers, and the National Guard.
Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington said we're not going to be caught flat-footed.
Apparently, the Post reported that Minneapolis authorities have, quote, been hatching security plans for the trial since July, when outrage over Floyd's death on May 25th while in police custody sparked massive protests worldwide.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat, sought to assure residents, saying, quote, there's going to be very high emotion on all sides of this, and we will be prepared.
Apparently, according to the mayor of Minneapolis, as many as 3,000 law enforcement personnel could be deployed before the case goes to a jury.
It's not just the courthouse that's being prepared for unrest.
The city jail, city hall, also being reinforced with fencing, barbed wire, and barriers.
Also, the city of Minneapolis, they just backed off of a plan, they had an actual plan, to hire social media influencers to combat misinformation during the Derek Chauvin trial.
The reason for this, of course, is because we have seen many instances over the past year in which there will be rumors that go around about a particular incident involving police that are just not true, and people then riot based on those rumors.
So we have seen that.
Many times over the course of the last year where there will be a text that goes out that somebody was shot unarmed and it turns out not only were they not unarmed they were threatening the police but a riot starts anyway because the facts do not matter in these particular cases.
Now the reason I bring this up is because it is a very bad situation.
We are in a very bad situation in our country when only a verdict that a particular side of the political aisle likes Results in peace, right?
In other words, if Derek Chauvin gets convicted of second-degree murder, which I think is an overcharge, legally speaking, this looks more like third-degree murder to me, if that at all, right?
Like, there's a better case for excessive force than either of those two.
Frankly, I think that Chauvin has a fairly strong defense here.
I mean, just on a legal level, put aside the morality of what Derek Chauvin did.
Chauvin, on a legal level, is going to have a fairly strong defense here.
And I'm just warning people about this right now.
Because the way the media are going to portray this is if Derek Chauvin gets off, then it's going to be because the system failed and your eyes are... You can trust your eyes when you watch that tape, but you can't trust the system.
Derek Chauvin's defense is pretty straightforward here.
His defense is going to be that George Floyd had enough fentanyl in him to kill a horse.
Okay, that is gonna be his claim.
And there's gonna be fairly good evidence for that.
There was a medical autopsy done after George Floyd died.
The medical examiner said explicitly that if George Floyd had been found dead in his house with that level of fentanyl in his blood, then he would have immediately declared it a drug overdose.
The medical examiner in that particular case struggled to find evidence that the knee on the neck of George Floyd is what actually caused his death.
There's good video evidence from before, the actual 8-minute clip that everybody has seen, that George Floyd was acting in extraordinarily erratic ways, that he was resisting arrest, that he appeared to be suffering from a condition that is known in the police community as excited delirium, where people are high on drugs, and then their heart rate starts to rise extremely fast, they start to act very, very erratic.
And then if they have underlying health conditions in any way, then in certain instances they die of that underlying health condition.
The Minneapolis statutes with regard to police use of force do allow the kind of hold that Chauvin was using on George Floyd.
George Floyd explicitly asked not to be put in the car.
They tried to push George Floyd into the car.
He said he wanted the windows open.
They opened the windows for him.
He then pushed his way out of the car.
And then he said he wanted to be outside the car, at which point they held him down.
And again, just medically speaking, if somebody says that they cannot breathe, if you can say that you can't breathe, that typically means that you can actually breathe.
What that means, medically speaking, is that you're having a heart condition.
Very often when someone says they can't breathe, that is not because you are having a closure of the trachea.
It's not about Your neck being in some way pressured, right?
There's no damage that was actually done to George Floyd's neck in the autopsy.
So again, all of this is gonna be what the defense is for Derek Chauvin.
And they have to prove some level of intent by Chauvin, which is gonna be super difficult.
The notion that you can say that this police officer came to kill that day, which is kind of what you have to say in a second degree murder trial.
First degree, like he fully intended to kill him, he wanted to do it.
Second degree is reckless disregard that he did it knowing that George Floyd might die.
That's going to be hard to prove.
Again, if they really wanted to get Chauvin, the best they could have done here, I think, is probably an excessive force charge.
Now, maybe because of all the hubbub surrounding the trial, the jury decides to convict anyway, because they don't want to be the people who are known as letting Derek Chauvin off the hook for what is the most celebrated case of alleged police brutality in our lifetime, at least since Rodney King.
But still, the defense here is going to be pretty strong.
And I'm giving that warning right now, because what you're going to see for the next several weeks is that There will be justifications for riots put forth on all sides.
That it was a foregone conclusion Derek Chauvin should be convicted of second-degree murder, no matter the evidence.
If the jury does not vote to convict Chauvin, then the call will go forth that the American justice system is incredibly unjust and that George Floyd did not receive the due process of the law in terms of his victimization and in terms of the treatment of the supposed perpetrator.
And then there will be riots.
And that is why they are putting up the fencing right now.
Right?
It was used as an indicator of the ill will of many on the right when we had to fence off the Capitol building in the aftermath of January 6th.
It should be used as an indicator that people are not going to care about the facts.
They're not going to care about the process here if you're putting up the fences preliminarily in a trial.
That is not a good sign for the country.
But that is the country that we now reside in.
And this is sort of the point.
We now live in a fragmented reality in which the facts don't matter.
I'm perfectly willing to evaluate the facts on Derek Chauvin as they come out in the Derek Chauvin trial.
We're gonna know more about that.
In the same way, I'm perfectly willing to look at the facts of each individual case because I think that the facts matter.
And when it's Ahmaud Arbery, that looks a lot like a racist killing.
When it comes to George Floyd, that looks a lot less like a racist killing to me just on the facts of the matter.
When it came to Jacob Blake, that didn't look like an act of police brutality at all.
That looked like Jacob Blake resisting arrest with a knife in his hand.
Every situation is different because the facts matter in every situation.
If you are talking about Philando Castile, which is an unjustified police killing, that is a very, very different story than the story of Eric Garner, or even the story of Trayvon Martin.
All of these stories have different fact patterns.
There are differential levels of guilt.
And we, as human beings, are called upon to evaluate the fact patterns in each of these circumstances.
But I fear that as a culture, we have moved beyond fact.
I fear that as a culture, we have decided that facts no longer matter.
All that matters is people's self-definition and their personal feelings.
There's a sentence from a story in the New York Times that I talked about at length last week that I think really sums up where we are as a country.
The sentence was in the story about Smith College where it turns out that there was a black woman who alleged that a janitor and a college administrator and a cafeteria worker who was utterly uninvolved had combined in order to perpetrate a racist act against her.
She was eating in a dormitory and they came and they told her to leave.
And she said that this was racism.
There was a full investigation.
None of that was true.
And the New York Times had this unbelievable statement.
The New York Times had this incredible sentence.
And I think it sums up pretty much everything you need to know about the country right now.
The story highlights the tensions between a student's deeply felt sense of personal truth and the facts that are at odds with it.
Now normally, in real life, we would say that there are facts, and then there's opinion.
There are facts, and then there are lies.
There are facts, and then there's the spin.
But, in the world that we now inhabit, there are two competing versions of reality.
There is the reality that is your deeply felt sense of personal truth.
Your identification of the truth as it appears to you.
And then there are the objective facts.
And it is not that facts should outweigh your deeply felt sense of personal truth.
That's the two are in conflict.
And we ought to give both sides a look.
Well, here's the thing.
Once you even do that as a society, once you decide that the facts are at the very best, only on par with a deeply felt sense of personal truth, namely your opinion or your feelings or what lies you tell yourself so you can sleep at night, once you do that, you cannot have A republic.
A republic literally is rooted in the idea that you and I can have a conversation about a common set of facts.
Facts that exist outside of us.
And that we have the capacity as human beings to sympathize with one another and even understand each other's emotional states on a basic level.
Not fully, because you can never fully understand somebody else's emotional state because you're not them.
What you can do is at least understand where they are coming from, right?
All of discussion, all of conversation, all of a republic, all of a republic is based on these basic notions.
We have now cut against all of those basic notions.
Because if I appeal to facts in a given situation, that in and of itself is considered discriminatory.
It is considered as though I am doing something bad to you.
I see this most clearly in the realm of the transgenderism debate, in which somebody declares that they are a member of the opposite sex.
And I say, well, the facts are against that because you are not, in fact, a member of the opposite sex.
And they say, you are infringing on my liberty.
By citing facts.
Stop your citation of facts.
You're not allowed to cite facts.
In fact, you should be banned for citing those facts.
That is a perfect example of a society in which your identification, your notion of self, is deeply tied into rejecting facts that are objectively verifiable about the world.
And once that happens, you can't have a conversation.
Because we have now become the Tower of Babel.
Right?
The Tower of Babel.
That story where God basically says to the people who are building a tower together, he says, okay, now you speak a variety of different languages.
What does it mean to speak a variety of different languages?
It means we can't understand one another.
There's an active movement in this country to make it so we can't understand one another and that any appeal to a common language, a common basis in facts or stats or data, that that is bad and wrong and infringing on my liberty of self-identification.
This is the sort of deconstructionist movement at its root.
The deconstructionist movement of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, right?
That deconstructionist movement basically said that there are these things called facts, but the priority that your society places on facts is different, right?
There are different societies and they treat facts in different ways.
And there's nothing inherently better about the way that your society treats facts, right?
An Enlightenment society that treats facts as paramount, there's nothing better about that than a non-Enlightenment society that doesn't treat facts as paramount, that treats instead myths as paramount, right?
Perhaps that's better.
And once you get to the point where we can no longer assume that we, as a people, care about facts more than we care about opinion, then you literally cannot have a society anymore.
And that's what we're seeing right now.
Every trial turns into a battle of narrative, not a battle over the facts on the ground.
This is what happened in, for example, Ferguson, Missouri.
Where the fact of that situation with Michael Brown became completely irrelevant.
It did not matter that hands up, don't shoot never happened.
Millions of people around the country marched, holding up their hands and saying, hands up, don't shoot, because it was symbolically true, even if it was factually false, right?
There's something AOC said, right?
Does it even matter if my facts are wrong so long as my morality is right?
And the answer is, yeah, it matters an awful lot.
It matters an awful, awful lot, because we can't have a conversation otherwise.
If facts are merely a reflection of how your society sees truth, Then facts really have no claim that is superior to any other claim, right?
This is why the left, instead of appealing to facts, the left very often appeals to structures of power, right?
So how do you determine who wins in a conversation?
If we can't appeal to facts and decide who is bringing facts to support their case and then decide the argument on that basis, then how do you determine who ought to win and who ought to lose?
Well, according to the left, the answer is the person who ought to win is the person who has been victimized systematically.
The person who is the victim of hierarchies of power is the person who ought to have more credibility.
This is why, for example, in that Smith College case, you saw Nikole Hannah-Jones ask, what is the social class of the black student that this entire piece centers on?
What is the actual power dynamic at play here?
As though her lying about a janitor is somehow justified if she was poorer than the janitor.
Or if she had a different skin color than the janitor.
Because then her deeply felt sense of personal truth would be rooted in class or race hierarchies.
And that means that she ought to be given additional credibility even when the facts cut directly against her.
The reason I'm talking about all of this is because I believe that this sense of facts not mattering, this sense that we ought to instead look into our own hearts, not in anybody else's heart, because you can't, right?
Look into your own heart for a definition of the world, and then everybody else is just supposed to go around acknowledging your definition of the world.
This ends republics, and it lies at the center of everything that is happening in our culture right now.
Every single thing, from math to literature, from journalism to criminal law, it's underlying a sense of everything.
Facts are no longer of import.
I've long had this tagline, facts don't care about your feelings.
The reality is that at this point, we are now in a completely reverse situation in the United States where feelings don't care about your facts.
Facts are irrelevant.
Facts are of secondary concern.
And in fact, if your facts conflict with the feelings, then your facts ought to be thrown out.
I'll give you some examples of this in just one moment.
First, Let's talk about something awkward.
You ready?
Erectile dysfunction.
Yeah, that was awkward, wasn't it?
Well, here's the thing.
You don't wanna talk about it?
Well, you still have to go get the medication you need for it.
I mean, it's a medical problem.
It's not just gonna go away on its own because you don't feel like talking about it.
Well, with Roman, you get a free online evaluation and ongoing care for ED, all from the comfort and privacy of your home.
A US-licensed healthcare professional will work with you to find the best treatment plan.
If medication is appropriate, it ships to you free with two-day shipping.
The whole process is straightforward and discreet.
Getting started is really easy.
Just go to GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Complete an online visit.
Take care of your ED without leaving your home.
Complete that online visit today.
Connect with a healthcare professional.
Get it taken care of.
A lot of people have a lot of medical problems that they tend to ignore just because it's uncomfortable to talk to a doctor about it.
Here's the thing.
Get Roman makes it easy and quick and discreet and inexpensive.
So what exactly are you waiting for?
Just get an annoying problem solved.
Go to GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Right now, you get $15 off your first month.
It's time to take care of that ED.
Remember, to get started today, you save 15 bucks on your first order of ED treatment at GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Alrighty, in just a second, we'll get to some examples of how the facts no longer matter, how a basis in logic and reason no longer matters.
Here's the thing.
This ties into a broader thing that we're doing here at Daily Wire.
There are a lot of narratives around hot topic issues.
It's hard to keep track of all the newest BS narratives the left is pushing any given day.
Right now, obviously, the left is pushing the idea that men are women and women are men, for example.
It is difficult to respond to these arguments because the standards are constantly shifting.
Trying to argue with people on the left very often feels like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.
And honestly, the only thing you can do is create a solid argument of your own that is based in fact and based in research and based in the data.
That can be pretty time consuming.
Well, we're doing it for you.
This is why I've launched a new show.
It is called Debunked.
It's a new show I'm hosting every Friday.
The point of the series is to provide you with a breakdown of popular fallacies pushed by the political left.
I've done the research.
I know the data.
I've done the work for you.
I walk it through in 15 minutes or less on a different topic every single week.
Last Friday's episode covered minimum wage.
I'm sure you keep hearing this argument that a minimum wage will give you a living wage.
It's a living wage.
What liberal activists and politicians won't acknowledge is that the minimum wage actually results in more unemployment.
So the actual minimum wage is zero dollars.
We talk about all the stats in this week's episode of Debunked.
Debunked is available exclusively and only to Daily Wire members.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use code debunked to get 25% off your new membership.
That is code debunked.
Go watch the minimum wage episode.
Stay tuned.
We have a new debunked episode coming out this Friday.
you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty, so let's talk about some examples where the facts don't matter.
So the perfect example of an area where facts do matter and where there are correct answers is math, right?
Math is a very easy one.
We should all be able to agree literally that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
It should be something very, very easy.
Well, John McWhorter, who is a black professor of linguistics, very famous in his field, he has a piece over at Substack titled, Is it racist to expect black kids to do math for real?
Says there's a document getting around called Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction, a guide put together by a group of educators.
It has a black boy on the cover.
The idea is to show us how our racial reckoning of late ought to change how we expose black kids to math.
I suppose the council is also intended for kids of other types of melanin, but this is, in essence, a document that could be called Math for Black Kids.
The latest is that state-level policymakers in Oregon are especially intrigued by this document.
There is all reason to suppose that its influence will spread more widely.
This is to be resisted, as this lovely pamphlet is teaching us that it is racist to expect black kids to master the precision of math to wit.
Its message, penned by people who consider themselves as some of the most morally advanced souls in the history of the human species, is one that Strom Thurmond would happily have taken a swig of whiskey to.
Of course, the authors have it that, quote, Okay, well, that is a lot of jargon.
Whenever the left talks about deconstructionism and why facts don't matter, they use all this jargon, right?
They're talking about hierarchies of power and anti-racism.
white supremacy in math classrooms by visualizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture.
Okay, well, that is a lot of jargon. Whenever the left talks about deconstructionism and why facts don't matter, they use all this jargon, right? They're talking about hierarchies of power and anti-racism. By anti-racism, they mean disrupting those quote-unquote hierarchies of power.
Dismantling white supremacy is code for we don't like things and therefore we're just going to say that they're white supremacists.
Translated, says John McWhorter, this means that math as we have known it is racism.
That's a rich claim.
If correct, it is of earth-shattering urgency.
But is it correct?
Let's see how it holds up.
Now, part of anti-racist math teaching, writes John McWhorter, is to teach about black mathematicians, or to air facts such as that the traditional Yoruba approach to numbers use base 20.
No one would object to these things, nor to the idea that, quote, we teach students of color about the career and financial opportunities in math and STEM fields.
But 96% of people reading this kind of thing will be thinking, yeah, but what about the math?
And there's nothing white supremacist in that question.
The substance of a serious proposal about teaching math will be, well, teaching how to do math itself, not its history and sociology.
For example, one idea in this fashicle is that the black students learn how math has hurt people.
But it's no slam-dunk little kids need to be taught this.
Wouldn't this affect a child's attitude toward mastering the skills?
More to the point is that this entire document is focused on an idea that making black kids be precise is immoral.
The document pays lip service otherwise, claiming at one point to seek to teach rich, thoughtful, complex mathematics.
And rather often, the word praxis is used.
But the thrust of the pamphlet is that one, a focus on getting the right answer is perfectionism and either-or thinking.
Two, the idea that teachers are teachers and students are learners is wrong.
Three, to think of it as a problem that the expectations you have of students are not met is racist.
Four, to teach math in a linear fashion with skills taught in sequence is racist.
Five, to value procedural fluency, i.e.
knowing how to do fractions and long division over quote-unquote conceptual knowledge, is racist.
That is, black kids are brilliant to know what math is trying to do, to know what it's all about, rather than actually trying to do the math.
Just as many of us read about what physics or astrophysics accomplishes without ever intending to master the math that led to the conclusions.
Six, to require students to show their work is racist.
And seven, requiring students to raise their hand before speaking can quote, reinforce paternalism and power hoarding.
You may wonder if this is a cartoon, says John McWhorter, but no, this is real.
This is actually what this document tells us again and again.
To distrust this document is not to be against social justice, but against racism.
Now, the point that McWhorter is making is a very real one.
We have seen that this polarized, atomistic thinking about ourselves as individuals, that our self-definition matters a lot more, our feelings matter a lot more than learning objective skills, or looking at the data, or trying to figure out true answers, that that has deep ramifications for every area of our society.
And it's just sort of glossed over.
Because here's the thing, most people don't look at the deep substratum of thought here, the deep substrata of thought when it comes to All the stuff that we are hearing about.
The vocabulary, as I call it.
The vocabulary is just a bunch of words that we are taught to mimic so we can be part of the upper class, right?
I mean, that's really what it is.
That's what college is all about these days.
It's why you see people put their pronouns in their Twitter profiles.
Like, I know you're a dude.
You don't need to put he, him.
I know you're a chick.
You don't need to put she, her.
If you're transgender, then maybe you will have a preferred pronoun.
But the fact that you have a bunch of people who are cisgender putting pronouns in their profiles is just a way of coding that you are a member of this new upper-crust elite who speak the vocabulary.
And that's all that matters.
And Americans want to be part of that upper-crust elite because Americans have always wanted to be part of the new upper-crust elite.
They've wanted to be part of the new ruling class.
It used to be that if you wanted to be a member of the new ruling class in the United States, what you would do is you would work super hard and you'd dress really well, like above your station.
You'd wear a suit to the office.
And you would try and get a nice wristwatch, and you would learn the word of the day, and you would try to get a good education.
All right, that was the way that you demonstrated that you were a member of the New Ruling class.
And more has changed, more has changed, and so you see now that to be a member of the new ruling class means to actually dress down, right?
If you're Mark Cuban, then you wear jeans and a t-shirt, or if you're Mark Zuckerberg, you wear a hoodie, right?
There are certain things that change, but the best way to become a part of the new ruling class these days is to speak the vocabulary.
It is just the shave and a haircut two bits of entry into the secret society, as I've said before, right?
When it comes to the use of these terms, it is not about understanding the terms.
Most of the terminology does have a deep academic background that is complete BS, but people don't have to know that and they don't have to buy into it.
This is why if you ask Americans, do you believe America is systemically racist?
Nobody understands what the term systemically racist means because that is a term that originated in the centers of academia.
It has actual content, but it has been robbed of its content for purposes of polling.
All you know is that if you don't say that America is systemically racist, then you will be labeled a racist and you can never be part of the New Orleans class.
That is why this sort of vocabulary is used.
This is why it is now de rigueur for prominent people to talk about how they are embarrassed to be a member, to be a white person, for example.
So John Brennan, who seriously ought to be in jail.
I mean, he lied to the Senate, openly lied to the Senate, but John Brennan is still considered a person worth listening to.
He was on MSNBC, and he just throws out a comment like this, right?
He says he's embarrassed to be a white male.
Why?
I mean, seriously, why?
I don't understand.
Why should you be embarrassed of your skin color?
I don't think whatever your skin color, you should be embarrassed of your skin color.
It's bizarre.
Okay, but this is now considered a way into... By saying that you're embarrassed to be a white male, you can actually be super proud of yourself being a white male who says he's embarrassed to be a white male.
So here is John Brennan, former CIA director, saying this nonsense, speaking the vocabulary.
I'm increasingly embarrassed to be a white male these days.
I don't know what I see in my other white male saying, but it just shows that with very few exceptions like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, there are so few Republicans in Congress who value truth, honesty, and integrity.
Okay, all the rest of his take on the Republican Party doesn't matter at all.
The fact that Nicole Wallace, who's a white lady, is laughing when he says he's embarrassed to be a white male, question, why?
Why?
That's ridiculous.
Even if a white person did something bad, why exactly would that embarrass you to be a white male?
I mean, that's like saying that every black person should be embarrassed because there are some black criminals.
That's ridiculous.
Why would you—why?
That has nothing to do with you.
You're an individual.
But again, it's about speaking the vocabulary.
And if you don't speak the vocabulary, then you can lose your job.
You could have been a member of the new ruling class one second ago.
But if you don't speak the vocabulary, then you're out.
Which is what happened to Donald McNeil over at the New York Times.
He has now released this long, four-part essay explaining why he was fired from the New York Times.
You'll remember, Donald McNeil was the lead COVID reporter at the New York Times.
He was nominated for a Pulitzer this year.
And he was ousted from the New York Times for the great crime of having, several years ago, gone on a trip to Peru, where somebody asked him, about the use of the n-word by a 12-year-old girl.
And he says, well, in what context was she using that?
And he said the word.
And he lost his job over that.
Well, he was forced out.
He was forced out by the editors at the New York Times because he had, quote-unquote, lost the newsroom.
First of all, I don't even know how you lose the newsroom.
Who gives a crap what the newsroom thinks?
Seriously, you're the New York Times.
You're the leading newspaper in America.
You give a crap what the, quote-unquote, newsroom thinks about your lead reporter on COVID in the middle of a pandemic?
But according to the Washington Free Beacon, Dean Paquette, the public, the executive editor of the paper, said, I know you're not a racist, but encouraged him to resign anyway because he had, quote unquote, lost the newsroom.
Paquette said, we're not firing you.
We're asking you to consider resigning.
Although McNeil technically resigned of his own volition, he was under intense pressure to do so.
When the Star Science reporter asked for details about the allegations, Paquette was silent.
McNeil said, it felt like an attempt to intimidate me.
Apparently, the New York Times union was unwilling to defend McNeil.
The union was, quote, deeply split over my case.
He decided he needed his own lawyer.
The reason for all of this, of course, is because he didn't speak the vocabulary.
He said some things that were impolitic, and if you say things that are impolitic, meaning they violate the precepts of the woke, they violate the precept that facts matter and the data matters, then, like, that entire incident was not about him using the N-word.
The entire incident was about him asking for specifics.
You're not allowed to ask for specifics, because specifics provide clarity.
Generalities provide confusion and room to wiggle.
Right now, all of politics is about this.
If you ask for specifics, you are seen as bad.
You are seen as wrong.
You are seen as racist.
If you ask for specifics, you are seen as rebutting somebody's deeply felt sense of personal truth.
And this is, it's confusing stuff.
It can violate the strictures of the moment at any point.
Twitch hilariously found this out yesterday.
So Twitch, the streaming service, They received backlash from both liberals and conservatives after referring to Women's History Month as Wimx History Month.
W-O-M-X-N History Month.
And now nobody with a brain has ever referred to women as W-O-M-X-N, but they were trying to make it so that women were different than wo-men.
It's like, so I married an axe-murderer.
Women?
Wo-man.
Basically, then the trans community came out and said this is terrible because some women are men.
Said it was transphobic.
It's just, it's hilarious.
It's hilarious.
It's pretty spectacular that the woke can't even get it straight, but that's the whole point.
In the end, that's the entire point.
And everybody, everybody is on the cancellation block.
And if you don't cancel, the best path to joining the woke, by the way, is to cancel yourself preemptively.
And this is precisely what is happening to Dr. Seuss.
Dr. Seuss's books are classics of children's literature.
He's the greatest children's author for kids who are under the age of seven of all time.
It is not close.
I read Dr. Seuss's books to my kids pretty much every day.
Okay, but according to a Virginia school district, Dr. Seuss's birthday can no longer be touted on Read Across America Day because a study said the author's work is, quote, filled with Orientalism, anti-blackness, and white supremacy.
Now, I grew up reading Dr. Seuss books.
You grew up reading Dr. Seuss books.
Everybody grew up reading Dr. Seuss books.
Did it make you more racist to read a Dr. Seuss book?
Did it ever even occur to you that race was an element of Dr. Seuss books until I just said this one second ago?
Of course not!
Because no one is actually outraged about this.
There are no human beings who read Dr. Seuss books and are actually angry at them.
All of this is just about signaling.
It is about setting new standards, hoops for people to jump through.
And if you ask for any sort of context that provides whether the book is racist, whether it is racist to read If I Ran the Zoo, because there are people of Asiatic appearance in the book If I Ran the Zoo, If you even ask that, even the question is racist.
If you say, okay, well, you know, he drew that in 1940, and let's just say that it was insensitive in 1940.
Has any child read this in the last 20, 30, 40 years and come away with a bad impression of people from Japan because they read a Dr. Seuss book?
To ask that question is to be the problem because now you are asking for evidence of a claim that is by nature a claim that is rooted solely in feelings.
So how did the Dr. Seuss Foundation respond to this?
Not by defending their guy.
Of course not.
Instead, the...
Official organization that controls the legacy of Dr. Seuss said it will no longer sell six of the author's children's books of racist and insensitive depictions, including his very first major book, and to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street.
I can't even remember what is supposed to be racist and to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street.
If I ran the zoo and McGillicudts Pool, by the way, I own all of them.
You should buy them today.
They're great for your kids.
The notion that this is, that he perpetuated Jewish stereotypes as financially stingy, And that all of this appears in his books.
The study published in 2019 examined 50 books by doctors who's found 43 out of the 45 characters of color have quote, characteristics aligning with the definition of Orientalism.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
It's just, it's all insanity.
But again, to call for an end to the insanity is to excise yourself from the community of the new ruling class.
And that is what all of this is about in the end.
There's only one way to fight back against people who have declared themselves to be at the top of the ruling class, and that's to say, you don't get to rule us.
End of story.
We ignore you, you're stupid, and we're not paying attention to any of this nonsense ever, ever again.
But, here's the thing.
The Biden administration has bought into this stuff hook, line, and sinker.
So here's the thing.
The Biden administration, being members of the new ruling class, and Joe Biden being an old, white, corrupt politician, has decided that he speaks the vocabulary too.
And it's very important that he speak the vocabulary.
Because what the left has basically done is they've decided that by banding together identity politics and socialistic thinking, they can craft enough of a working majority to cram through their actual political agenda.
To go back to the original thesis of today's show, it's all about politics.
It is all about power and getting things done.
It's about the authoritarian cram down of certain policies.
Basically, there are a bunch of people who don't really buy into the vocabulary, who have decided they're gonna make common cause with people who do buy into the vocabulary, and a bunch of people who actually believe in the inequity is inequality argument, who have decided that they will make common cause with the socialistic wing of the Democratic Party in order to cobble together a new coalition of the ascendant.
You can see this actually pretty well in Bernie Sanders.
If you look back at Bernie Sanders' original presidential campaign in 2016, he didn't speak about race nearly at all.
It was all about how all the problems in our society can be laid at the root of the capitalistic system, and if you just get more socialists, it solves everything.
Then, over the course of the next few years, something interesting happened to the Bernie Sanders campaign.
He was told that it was not racially sensitive to speak only in terms of class.
Now, Bernie Sanders is basically a commie, right?
I mean, his perspective on life is rooted in Marxist fundamental lies about class conflict and how all of human life is driven by this class conflict.
Everything he says is driven by that.
And so, if you believe that everything at root is about class conflict, it's not at root about racial conflict, right?
The black working man and the white working man have more in common than the white working man and the white rich man, or the black working man and the black rich man.
If it's about class, it's not about race, but Bernie Sanders was told that this was racially insensitive.
And so, he decided to make common cause with the woke and start pushing as many woke policies as he could get his hands on.
And this was, writ small, what has happened with the Democratic Party, writ large.
This was the magic of Barack Obama, right?
This is what Obama did as president.
I know that we have this picture of Barack Obama as though Barack Obama was this wonderful unifying figure.
That is a figure put forth by the media.
It is a lie.
Barack Obama of 2004 was not the same as Barack Obama circa 2010.
In 2004, Barack Obama was saying, there are no black Americans.
There are no white Americans.
We're all just Americans.
There's no red America, no blue America.
Just America.
By 2010, Barack Obama was breaking down Americans into their identity groups so that he could specifically appeal to members of those identity groups to create a coalition.
This is the reason why he actually shrank his number of votes between 2008 and 2012, but it was enough to get him by Mitt Romney.
So the merger between identity politics and typical sort of Democratic Party politics has been ongoing, and Joe Biden is the culmination of that, which is how you end up with a machine politician like Joe Biden, and that's what he is.
A sort of machine, typical, corrupt old white politician who has suddenly become the face and voice of the racial reparations movement.
According to one of Joe Biden's top advisors, he is going to start acting now to address reparations to Black Americans.
Speaking to Axios on HBO in an interview set to air on Monday, White House senior advisor Cedric Richmond discussed efforts targeted to helping minority communities.
Richmond said they're not waiting on Congress.
He said, we don't want to wait on a study.
We're going to start acting now.
We have to start breaking down systemic racism and barriers that have held people of color back, and especially African-Americans.
We have to do that stuff now, right?
That's the vocabulary.
And we're going to specifically appeal on the basis of race and suggest that all inequality is inequity.
And Joe Biden has decided that equity is the byword of his administration.
So, for example, he says that we are going to start talking about free college tuition to historically black colleges and universities.
If you start talking about free community college in Title I and all these things, I think you're well on your way.
Now, let's be real about this.
If you're talking about free college, the reality is that the great imbalance in our society is the number of people going to college between people who are black and white.
The number of people who are white going to college by percentage is significantly higher than the number of people going to college who are black.
That's not because of lack of affirmative action programs or benefits programs or scholarship programs.
All of those exist in plenty.
The real problem is the failure of lower education.
The failure of the public school system.
So what is this?
It's a typical democratic policy smuggled in under the guise of the vocabulary.
It's a typical democratic policy position that is now being smuggled in under the guise of doing racial justice.
You call it reparations, and then you can push forward the idea that you are speaking the vocabulary, and you can build your coalition on the back of all of this.
And so this is the new pitch.
This is the Biden administration pitch.
Use the word equity to cram down all of the typical democratic policy proposals and claim that anybody who disagrees with you is a racist.
Because here's the thing, Joe Biden can't claim that anybody who disagrees with him is a racist.
It's bizarre.
That dude is whiter than the back of this piece of paper I'm holding up right now.
I mean, in a whiteness competition, I come in a distant second to Joe Biden.
It is not close.
Joe Biden is a super white dude.
And yet, because he's using the language of quote-unquote equity, And the language of anti-racism to push forward typical policy proposals.
The idea becomes now that it is white supremacy to oppose Joe Biden's policy positions.
An old white politician.
One of the whitest people in America.
And so that gives him enormous ability to push forward these positions while calling all of his opponents racist, which is, again, bizarre.
Barack Obama could do it because he could just say, people who hate me are racist.
And while it was a lie, he could at least pretend it was true because, obviously, at least the factual basis of him being a black person was right.
Joe Biden, not a black person, still making the same exact claims.
So when you merge the Democratic coalitional ideal, with the racial ideal, and all of it becomes about those systems of power, right?
Not about facts, not about the success of the policies, about the systems of power.
You can get away with nearly anything, and Joe Biden knows this.
So, what is he doing?
He's pushing all of his typical policies, but all of it's gonna be based on racial politics.
According to the Daily Wire, the Biden administration is reportedly considering scheduling a controversial vote on a gun control bill in the next couple of weeks.
Well, I mean, of course he is, because he's always wanted a gun control bill.
A report by Punchbowl News, which was founded by former political reporters, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democrats were focused on turning their attention to other issues the Biden administration has on its agenda, including gun control, after passing this giant quote-unquote COVID relief package, which is really not a COVID relief package at all.
Some of these controversial votes would require universal background checks on gun sales, which of course would create a giant gun registry.
Another bill would close the so-called Charleston loophole, which allows gun purchases to proceed.
If the background check isn't completed in three business days, you can hold these things up interminably, of course.
And essentially, he is calling for a ban on semi-automatic firearms.
I mean, that is what, when he says banning assault weapons, there's no definition to all of this.
So this is, you know, typical Democratic policy being pushed under the guise of equity.
Other typical Democratic policy being pushed under the guise of equity is immigration policy.
So Joe Biden has basically decided to open the borders wide.
And we all know this.
Joe Biden has decided he's not going to enforce immigration law.
He's going to go right back to not enforcing immigration law.
He's attempting to kill agreements whereby people have to wait in Mexico in order to see if they ought to be granted asylum in the United States.
Instead, Biden just wants to release them into the interior of the United States.
And meanwhile, he's trotting out his own members of the government to just lie about it.
So he's got the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas saying there is no crisis at the border.
This is just a lie.
There are about 8,000 unaccompanied minors at the border.
That is the highest number that we've had in many, many years.
We're at 97% capacity at the borders, which is why we're now reopening all the bad old Trump facilities, right?
But it's not a crisis.
It's not a crisis because Joe Biden says it's not a crisis.
Here's Alejandro Mayorkas.
Do you believe that right now there is a crisis at the border?
I think that the answer is no.
I think there is a challenge at the border that we are managing, and we have our resources dedicated to managing it.
One of your predecessors, Jay Johnson, he said that 1,000 illegal border crossings a day constitutes a crisis, that it overwhelms the system.
We're at between 3,000 and 4,000 now, according to CDP officials.
So how is this not a crisis?
Um, I have explained that quite clearly.
I, um, uh, we are challenged at the border.
Oh, well, if you say it's a challenge and not a crisis, it's totally fine.
And if you say it's a challenge and not a crisis, see, a crisis would require you to actually do something to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
But here's the thing.
For purposes of equity, the Biden administration has no interest in stemming the tide of illegal immigration.
In fact, they are now openly saying, well, you know, it's kind of awkward for us right now, so if you could just like hold off on the illegal immigration for seven minutes, that'd be awesome.
But, you know, in the end, we're kind of okay with it.
Here's the director of Homeland Security, the secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, saying, we're not saying don't come to illegal immigrants, we're just saying don't come right now, guys.
We're a little overwhelmed.
I don't have a particular timeline, but all I can do is communicate both to the American public and to the individuals seeking protection that we are working around the clock seven days a week to make that time frame as short as possible, but they need to wait.
But they need to wait with a particular goal in mind.
We are not saying don't come.
We are saying don't come now.
Because we will be able to deliver a safe and orderly process to them as quickly as possible.
I mean, I'm sorry.
That's crazy.
That's crazy.
We know that the vast majority of people who are arriving on America's southern border are not legally claiming asylum.
We know this.
Okay?
That is just a reality.
The vast majority of people who arrive on the border are not claiming political asylum in its typical definition.
And economic asylum is not a thing.
Because economic asylum just means everybody gets in because America has a really strong economy.
And when he says, we just don't come right now, what he's really saying is, just come on.
You know, it's fine.
Just come.
Everybody knows this, including Democratic representatives.
One Democratic representative named Vincente Gonzalez, Democrat of Texas.
He says, this immigration policy is absolutely catastrophic.
Again, this is a Democrat from Texas saying that the current administration policy makes no sense.
My concern in the recent weeks in my district, migrants who made it across the border, who even passed the line of MPPs who are 5,000 folks that have been waiting for two years across the border, made it across the Rio Grande Valley, were processed and released.
If that is the message that we send to Central America and around the world, I can assure you it won't be long before we have tens of thousands of people showing up to our border and it'll be catastrophic for our party, for our country, for my region, for my district.
In the middle of a pandemic in an area where we've lost over 3,000 people in my small congressional district.
Okay, I mean, that is just the reality.
That is just the reality.
But it all ties into the vocabulary again.
It all ties into the idea that if you can tie everything into race, if you object to this, it must be because you object to America getting more brown or something, which is absurd.
I've said 1,000 times, I do not care about the race of Americans.
All I care about is the ideology, philosophy, and decency of Americans.
That's all I care about.
But not so on the left, because again, it's not about the facts, it's about the narrative.
And when it comes to the narrative, facts very often stand in the way of good narrative.
All righty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content coming up soon.
The Matt Wall Show airing at 1.30 p.m.
Eastern.
Be sure to check it out over at dailywire.com.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Production Manager, Paweł Łajdowski.
Our Associate Producers are Rebecca Doyle and Savannah Dominguez.
The show is edited by Adam Ciejewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
Production Assistant, Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright 2021.
On the Matt Wall Show, we talk about the things that matter.
Real issues that affect you, your family, our country.
Not just politics, but culture, faith, current events, all the fundamentals.
▲
Export Selection