All Episodes
Previous Next
July 2, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
47:41
Not Everything Is Rrrrrrrracist | Ep. 1289
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Supreme Court says shoring up voting procedures isn't racist.
Nicole Hannah-Jones gets her tenure and then demonstrates why she shouldn't have been offered it in the first place.
And Nancy Pelosi launches her January 6th commission with cover from Liz Cheney.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
I protect my data with VPN, so should you.
Visit expressvpn.com.
We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
First, a reminder, you're spending way too much on your cell phone bill.
Pretty much everybody is, unless you switch over to Pure Talk USA, which is why so many of my listeners already have.
In fact, another thousand of you, my extremely wise listeners, have made the switch.
From your overpriced wireless carrier to PureTalk over the past couple of months.
So what exactly are the rest of you waiting for?
If you're with AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile, your family could save over $800 a year just by switching to PureTalk.
You get the same great coverage because they use the exact same towers as one of the big carriers.
You can even keep your phone and your number, but you will be saving a fortune.
PureTalk is the top-rated wireless company.
Buy Consumer Affairs.
They've got the absolute best customer service team based right here in America.
If that sounds good, it gets better because right now you get unlimited talk text and six gigs of data for just 30 bucks a month.
You might be thinking, what if I use eight gigs of data?
Here's the thing.
They're not going to charge you for using data over that six.
Okay, so yesterday was a day of panic.
Panic!
pound 250 and say Ben Shapiro to get started.
When you do, you say 50% off your very first month.
Dial pound 250, say keyword Ben Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Again, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro, get started with PeerTalk.
PeerTalk is simply smarter wireless.
Okay, so yesterday was a day of panic panic because the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Voting Rights Act, which is a very, very far reaching and historic measure in American law, going all the way back to 1965, it was designed to prevent attempts to essentially keep the vestiges of segregation in the South after the Civil Rights Act and prevent black people from voting is meant to stop those procedures from happening in the South.
It required Southern states particularly to go through a process known as preclearance in which their voting laws were basically precleared by the federal government.
And the idea was that over time, as the country got less racist, and as states began to see better representation of black voters who historically had been Discriminated against the polls that the Voting Rights Act would start to diminish over time in the same way that we saw the Supreme Court say in the 1970s that affirmative action would start to wane over time.
And this has always been sort of dicey constitutional territory because on its face, the Voting Rights Act does seize authority from the state and bring it up to the level of the federal government.
And so the broader The more broadly you interpret the Voting Rights Act, the more permanently you interpret the Voting Rights Act, the more it seems to come into conflict with the Constitution.
The same thing happens to hold true with regard to affirmative action, as the Supreme Court has found over and over.
They keep saying, well, it's sort of a temporary measure.
Yeah, we understand that it violates the Equal Protection Clause, but we need it in order to redress historic wrongs.
And now the Supreme Court has come up with sort of new justifications for why it's okay to discriminate in admissions on the basis of race.
Now they say diversity is its own excuse and all of this.
Well, the Voting Rights Act Was never meant to be a way of cramming down federal rules on on states that had discriminated for all of time.
And we are now 60 years removed from the Voting Rights Act, almost 60 years removed because passed again in 1965.
It is now almost 2025.
So it's almost three generations later.
And the left is still insisting That voter discrimination is a massive problem in the United States.
The evidence of this is extremely scanty.
The notion that black and Hispanic voters in the United States, but particularly black voters, are being discriminated against and prevented from voting is just not true.
The belief That huge numbers of black voters are being disenfranchised is a lie.
It is trotted out by the Democratic Party in order to jog voter turnout in the black community.
The reality is that Barack Obama basically won in 2012 because black voters in places like Ohio showed up in numbers that out-tallied their percentage of the population.
The reality is that black voters showed up en masse this last election cycle in places like Georgia, for example.
So the belief that red states have been shutting the doors to black voters or discriminating against black voters is extremely un- it's not based in evidence.
It really is not based in evidence at this point.
Okay, so there was a voter law in Arizona.
It was passed in 2018, and what it cracked down on is essentially two things.
One was voting out of precinct.
If you voted outside your precinct, then your ballot got tossed because you have Usually a place where you're supposed to vote and it's very difficult to match you up to your vote if you're voting outside your precinct.
If I drove over to Naples today and I decided I was going to vote in Naples as opposed to voting where I live, well then that would be a serious problem.
It'd be difficult to match up my ballot to the place where I lived.
And so Arizona cracked down on that.
And they also cracked down on the most corrupt practice in modern American politics, ballot harvesting.
Ballot harvesting is this practice where you deploy members of your party to go pick up ballots from third parties.
So you are the Republican Party chairman and you say to your worker, I want you to only go to houses that have historically voted Republican.
I want you to pick up their ballots and I want you to drive them to the ballot box.
And well, this presents a couple of problems.
One, basically whichever side is better funded in terms of who picks up more ballots that day, Is it really a stretch of the imagination to believe that when you ballot harvest on behalf of a party and you're a party activist and you have access to a bunch of ballots that you have specifically picked up, that you're not going to go in the back and just mark off a few boxes?
In fact, this is a major problem in North Carolina in a Republican district.
Somebody hired a Republican voter outfit, and this is exactly what they did.
They had to rerun the election.
So ballot harvesting has been a major problem.
It's been a major problem in California.
In 2018, for example, Democrats swept a bunch of seats in Orange County that looked as though they were red seats, specifically because they went out and they ballot harvested.
So ballot harvesting is extremely corrupt.
It is rife with the potential for fraud, and Arizona cracked down on it.
So the Democrats sued.
They said that it was a discriminatory law.
They said it violated the Voting Rights Act because it prevented black and Hispanic people from voting in a way that it didn't prevent white people from voting.
Now the problem for them is that it was a facially neutral law.
The law applied to everybody.
You can't vote out of precinct.
Doesn't matter your race.
And the other problem is that everybody still got to vote.
So it's very difficult to make the claim that this was specifically directed at black and Hispanic voters.
You could say that it was attempting to crack down on Democratic voting practices at which they had an advantage, that ballot harvesting had been used to great advantage by Democrats, and Republicans were now fighting back against that.
But that's not unusual, right?
That is true throughout American voting law.
Whenever Democrats take control of a legislature, they proceed to gerrymander the entire state in alignment with Democratic voting interests.
And when Republicans take advantage of a legislature, then they do the exact same thing.
They proceed to reverse gerrymander.
So the sort of interplay over voting law has been a longtime feature of American politics.
None of that is banned.
Changing voting procedures such that it seems to help your party in one way or another.
I mean, this is what Democrats are now attempting to do at the federal level, right?
There's a reason why Democrats are pushing ballot harvesting at both the state and the federal level, and Republicans are pushing back against it.
And it's not because Democrats just want more people to vote.
I'm not seeing Democrats really push super hard in highly red areas for ballot harvesting, for example.
It seems like they're doing this mostly on behalf of purple and blue states.
But the real ban is on voting procedures that are designed to disenfranchise black people.
That's what the Voting Rights Act is about.
So the Supreme Court looked at the Arizona law and they said, no, this is not violative of the Voting Rights Act.
And the dissent in this particular is a 6-3 ruling in which all of the Republican appointees voted one way and all the Democratic appointees voted the other.
It's the first kind of major 6-3 ruling that we've seen in a while, because usually Roberts tends to vote with the Democrats on sort of 6-3 rulings, or he tries to water down the decision so as to get a couple more Democratic votes, which you've seen a few times here.
Unanimous decisions that didn't have to be unanimous, but Roberts made them unanimous and watered down the decision in order to achieve the unanimous vote and limit the scope of the decision, for example.
On this one, it went almost straight party line appointment.
And the Democrats basically now claim that any law that has quote-unquote disparate impact is unconstitutional under the Voting Rights Act, which is pretty wild because most laws have some sort of disparate impact.
It turns out the disparate impact in this particular case is minute, statistically speaking.
It doesn't matter.
So, according to Democrats, this is a racist decision.
It is the racist Republican majority on the Supreme Court for cramming down a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Instead, the Supreme Court should read the Voting Rights Act as broadly as possible, according to the dissent, in order to rule out a huge bevy of Republican-led attempts to shore up voting procedures that may disproportionately affect black and brown voters, even though they are facially neutral and, in fact, neutrally applied.
This is the argument that you hear from Democrats until the last five minutes, that voter ID is racist.
Because they say, well, you know, that'll disenfranchise more black and brown people.
And most Americans are like, well, no, everybody can go get an ID.
But Democrats say, well, statistically, fewer black and brown people have IDs than white people.
Therefore, it is discriminatory.
That's the kind of logic that the dissent uses written by Elena Kagan in this particular Supreme Court case.
Because for Democrats, everything now boils down to a core voter theory.
That voter theory is, the way they're going to win future elections is by cobbling together a coalition of the supposedly dispossessed to overcome the fading white majority.
This has been a theory, again, it's the most dangerous theory in American politics, that demography is destiny.
It is a theory that is pushed alternatively by the mainstream left and the alt-right.
It is a lie.
It is not true.
But Democrats have bought into this full scale because it proposes that as the country gets browner, inevitably, Democrats will not only win a majority, but they will keep a majority no matter what, and that the majority will rule for all time.
The demography is destiny argument that Democrats make is basically a utopian argument.
It's a millenarian argument.
We are going to reach the end of history at a point when we cobble together enough of a coalition of the dispossessed that we will never lose another election.
And thus, the only thing that could be preventing that right now is voter suppression efforts on behalf of Republicans.
Which serves a couple of purposes.
One, it allows them to keep this illusion of the new politics in their mind.
And two, it allows them to lie to minority voters and tell them that Republicans are attempting to prevent them from voting in the first place, which of course is not true.
Okay, so according to the New York Times, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave states new latitude to impose restrictions on voting.
No, they really didn't.
The New York Times is so unbelievably biased.
That is not what the court says.
What the court says is if you want to show discrimination in law, you have to show discrimination in law.
You can't just allege that because a law has a disparate impact, that means that the law itself is racist.
Every single law that has ever been passed in the United States affects some groups differently than others.
Every single law.
That does not mean that the law is invalid under either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.
What the dissent would like, what Democrats would like, is to have essentially a super legislature at the Supreme Court level that strikes down all laws made by red state legislatures and greenlights all discriminatory measures taken by blue state legislatures.
That really is the goal here.
The vote was 6-3, the court's three liberal members in dissent.
According to the New York Times, the decision was among the most consequential in decades on voting rights.
It was the first time the court had considered how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to restrictions that have a particular impact on people of color.
But it doesn't have a particular impact on people of color.
This is one of the points that the majority opinion makes.
They say, looking at this statistically, the impact on minority voters is minimal.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority said where a state provides multiple ways to vote, any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.
In other words, if the state says you can vote 10 different ways, and one of the ways happens to have disparate impact, there's still nine other ways for you to vote.
So you really can't say that this one right here, this right here is designed in order to prevent black and brown people from voting.
Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that essentially wherever it can, the majority gives a cramped reading to broad language.
But here's the point.
The broader the language of the VRA, the more broadly you interpret the language of the VRA, the closer it comes to violating the constitutional provision that states get to run their own elections.
If you are attempting to read the Voting Rights Act in order to give the federal government complete purview over all voting procedures simply on the basis of an extremely statistically minute disparate impact, you're basically just getting rid of state ability at all to make its own voting procedures, which violates the Constitution itself.
Justice Kagan said that the court's action was a devastating blow to the nation's ideals.
She says, what is tragic here is that the court has yet again rewritten, in order to weaken, a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness and protects against its basest impulses.
What is tragic is that this court has damaged a statute designed to bring about, quote, the end of discrimination in voting.
Well, again, the statute was designed to do that.
The statute has largely accomplished it.
And at a certain point, you're going to have to decide whether you just want to be in control.
What Elena Kagan and the Democrats would like is to be in control of all voting procedures on the federal level.
So, Democrats are using this as an opportunity to push their Equal Rights Act, their Voting Rights Act, their new voting legislation, the John Lewis Act, and that, of course, is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that federalizes all voting procedure.
You can see the Democratic agenda.
Call things racist, because if you call them racist, then you get to federalize the procedure.
But that's not what this case is about.
This case simply said that some pretty basic voting requirements having a slightly disparate impact over the course of millions of voters does not mean that this thing was designed to be discriminatory or in fact is a discriminatory piece of law.
We'll go through a little bit more of the decision in a second because it's kind of important.
Because, again, the entire Democratic case these days seems to boil down to everything I don't like is racist and therefore give me control.
We'll get to more of that in just one second first.
If you're a business owner who's hiring, you probably face a lot of challenges when it comes to finding the right person for your role.
That's why hiring can feel like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
Sure, you could post your job to some job board and all you can do is hope the right person comes along.
That's why instead you should try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
When you post a job on ZipRecruiter, it gets sent out to over 100 top job sites with just one click.
Then, ZipRecruiter's matching technology finds people with the right skills and experience for your job and actively invites them to apply.
In fact, ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
It's no wonder over 2.3 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
We use ZipRecruiter here at The Daily Wire.
It's one of the reasons we have excellent employees like Bradford, who not only does an excellent job helping to run the show, but also makes terrific recommendations about me buying boats as well as golf machines.
While other companies overwhelm you with way too many options, ZipRecruiter Find you what you're looking for, the needle in the haystack.
Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at this web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Once again, remember, go to this unique place.
ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Okay, so, the Supreme Court majority points out that the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be an unlimited guarantee that the federal government gets to run all voting procedure.
According to the court decision, the court first construed the current version of Section 2 in a case called Thornburg v. Gingles, which was a vote dilution case where the court took its cue from Section 2's legislative history.
The court's many subsequent vote dilution cases have followed the path that Gingles charted because the court here considers for the first time how Section 2 applies to generally applicable time, place, or manner voting rules, it is appropriate to take a fresh look at the statutory text.
In 1982, Congress amended the language in Section 2 that had been interpreted to require proof of discriminatory intent by a plurality of the court in Mobile v. Bolden.
In place of that language, Section 2a now uses the phrase in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color.
Right?
It's denying or abridging on account of race or color, right?
Because of race or color.
Then section 2b states that section 2 is violated only where the political processes leading to nomination or election are not quote equally open to participation by members of the relevant protected groups in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.
In that section, the phrase in that is used to specify the respect in which a statement is true.
Thus, equal openness and equal opportunity are not separate requirements.
Instead, it appears the core of 2B is the requirement that voting be equally open.
The statute's reference to equal opportunity may stretch that concept to some degree to include consideration of a person's ability to use the means that are equally open, but equal openness remains the touchstone.
In other words, if you have the ability to vote, Then the fact that you chose not to vote in one way doesn't mean that you can't vote in another way.
Another important feature, says the court, is the totality of the circumstances requirement.
Any circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is equally open and affords equal opportunity may be considered.
Okay, then they take a look at sort of how the Arizona law applies here.
And what they point here is that having to identify one's polling place and then travel there does not exceed the usual burdens of voting.
In addition, Arizona made extensive efforts to reduce the impact of the out-of-precinct policy on the number of valid votes ultimately cast by sending a sample ballot to each household that includes a voter's proper polling location.
The burdens of identifying and traveling to one's assigned precinct are also modest when considering Arizona's political processes as a whole.
The state offers other easy ways to vote, which likely explains why out-of-precinct votes on Election Day make up such a small and apparently diminishing portion of overall ballots cast.
Also, the racial disparity and burdens allegedly caused by the out-of-precinct policy is small in absolute terms.
Of the Arizona counties that reported out-of-precinct ballots in the 2016 general election, a little over 1% of Hispanic voters, 1% of African-American voters, and 1% of Native American voters who voted on Election Day cast an out-of-ballot precinct ballot.
For non-minority voters, the rate was around 0.5%.
A procedure that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies, minority and non-minority alike, is unlikely to render a system unequally open.
That is simply true.
I mean, at what point do you start to say that a law's disparate impact starts to look racist?
Not at the difference between 1% and 0.5%.
I mean, that literally means that 99% of the Black, Hispanic, and Native American people who cast ballots in this particular way in Arizona.
And again, remember, this is a very small number of people.
That number is obviously not.
The difference between 1% and 0.5% is obviously not going to be the big difference maker here.
But according to the court, according to the dissent, and according to Democrats, as long as there is any distinction in the outcome, that means that racism has happened.
Now, what this has driven is, of course, the Democrats who suggest that the Supreme Court is a repository of racism, etc.
So President Biden tweeted out, Our democracy depends on it.
Our democracy does not depend on it.
in this country and makes it all the more crucial to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and expand voting protection. Our democracy depends on it. Our democracy does not depend on it. That man just got 80 million votes. That man just won a bunch of states he was not supposed to win.
Our democracy absolutely does not depend on you federalizing all voting procedures.
But again, this is the pitch.
This is constantly the pitch.
Okay, Joy Reid did the same thing.
She has a violent blow against democracy.
Okay, so let me just get this straight.
To say that ballot harvesting is not allowed in a state.
Again, it's a very corrupt, fraud-ridden voting procedure.
And to say that you have to vote in the precinct to which you are assigned.
This apparently is a threat to democracy.
Everything, according to the left, is a threat to democracy.
Everything.
So long as they believe that it's going to cut against them.
That's the... Always and forever.
It is truly amazing to me that we have gone through six months, eight months, of people going crazy over Donald Trump, suggesting that the election was stolen, stopped the steal, that voter fraud decided the election, which is untrue.
And the exact same people say that widespread evidence of voter suppression and racism in voting procedures remains a pressing issue in the United States.
There is less evidence of the latter than there is of the former, and there is very little evidence of either.
Here is Joy Reid saying what Joy Reid does.
In a 6-3 ruling written by Samuel Alito, the most reliably conservative justice, the Supreme Court dealt another violent blow against democracy by upholding two restrictive Arizona voting laws, forbidding the collection of absentee ballots by anyone other than family or caregivers, and allowing the tossing of ballots inadvertently cast in the wrong precinct.
It's the latest notch in the belt of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose life's work, really, since his days as an influential aide in the Reagan Justice Department, has been to destroy the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Okay, understand, the Voting Rights Act was specifically designed for a time and a place, in the same way that many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act were designed for a time and a place, and Affirmative Action was designed for a time and a place.
Now, please, it was 1964-1965 America.
It was not designed to suggest that every voting procedure undertaken in a red state in the South has to be scrutinized by the federal government three generations later.
This is a political argument, it's not even a legal argument.
What Elena Kagan would like, she sets no standards in her dissent, by the way.
Her dissent basically says, whenever we decide that we don't like a voting procedure, we will just say it violates the VRA and then we'll throw it out.
And the court in this case said, no, you actually have to show evidence that this was designed in order to hurt black people.
The DNC did not show that in this particular case, and thus the DNC lost in this particular case.
This also means, by the way, that the DOJ case that's being brought against Georgia on the basis of their new voting procedures is likely to be tossed by the Supreme Court.
It also means, by the way, that the John Lewis Voting Rights Act that the Democrats are pushing probably would be found unconstitutional a wide variety of ways by the same Supreme Court.
The reason Democrats are pretending to be so upset about this, of course, is because, again, they want black and Hispanic Americans to believe that there's an entire party seeking to disenfranchise them.
That is a lie.
It's untrue.
But.
Maybe they can make political hay while the sun shines.
Because if everything is racism, you never have to make an affirmative case for your own actual political agenda or explain why it is that your agenda keeps failing black and Hispanic people the country over.
Okay, so, Nikole Hannah-Jones apparently has now received her tenure.
I know, I was waiting with bated breath as well.
Now I said for a long time, I've become an accelerationist when it comes to universities and colleges.
When it comes to universities and colleges, I think that basically the colleges should embrace the most radical points of view.
They should enshrine them.
And then everybody who recruits for a business should just start ignoring college degrees.
We at Daily Wire do not take college degrees into account when it comes to hiring.
If you have qualifications, if you have work experience, we will hire you whether you went to high school, whether you went to college, we don't care.
We would be hypocrites to do anything less.
My business partner, Jeremy Boring, never graduated from college.
I went to Harvard Law School.
Our educational degrees are quite disparate.
Our business partnership remains intact.
The very silly notion that if you get a degree from the University of North Carolina that this somehow qualifies you to actually do anything in life if you are a liberal arts major or somebody who studied with Nikole Hannah-Jones is absurd on its face.
By the way, note going out to all major Republican donors to the University of North Carolina, this is where your money is going.
Understand that your money is now going, your donations.
You may love the Tar Heels, but your donation is now going to pay Nikole Hannah-Jones a salary.
You should think about that before you sign the check.
Think about what you would wish to subsidize with your dollars.
NBC News reports in a 9-4 vote the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on Wednesday approved tenure for Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones.
Now, Nikole Hannah-Jones is a professional liar and prevaricator.
She has no academic credentials that would qualify her for a tenure-track position at a major university.
I'm not qualified for a tenure-track position at a major university, and I actually have more degrees than she does.
The vote Wednesday after a closed session comes after a controversy over why Hannah Jones was not offered tenure in her appointment at the Hussman School of Journalism, and the answer is pretty much no one is offered tenure right off the bat.
Typically, you are on tenure track, and then you earn tenure.
But originally, she was supposed to be given tenure just straight off the bat at the Hussman School of Journalism, which means you can't fire her ever.
Hannah Jones said that Wednesday's outcome was about more than her, of course.
Of course.
Because everything with Hannah Jones is about more than her.
The fight is about ensuring the journalistic and academic freedom of black writers, researchers, teachers, and students, she said.
We must ensure our work is protected and able to proceed free from the risk of repercussions.
And we are not there yet.
Really?
It seems we're not there yet?
Because you are utterly unqualified to have ever been offered this position.
You lied in the 1619 Project repeatedly.
You treat people who disagree with you academically like garbage.
You're extraordinarily radical, and yet somehow you have not only been celebrated by our culture, you have been handed basically the editorship of the New York Times now, as well as a tenured position at the University of North Carolina.
It sounds like your systemic racism is working very poorly in the United States, I must say.
It's working truly terribly.
Because it seems like the institutions of the United States that are most powerful are too busy honoring Nicole Hannah-Jones to ask simple questions like, does she know what the hell she's talking about?
By the way, Nikole Hannah-Jones, again, one of our great racial geniuses.
So she did an interview in which she explained that actually, racial violence is good.
Nobody should be surprised about this.
She celebrated racial violence last year, in the middle of the pandemic, when there were riots happening in America's major cities.
People tweeted out that these were the 1619 riots, and she basically said, I hope so.
The truth is, Nikole Hannah-Jones has been propagating lies and misinformation for years.
I mean, Nikole Hannah-Jones last year was suggesting that violence in the streets is a good thing.
The civil rights movement leads to this massive civil rights legislation being passed, the 64 Civil Rights Act and the 65 Voting Rights Act.
And at the same time, urban ghettos all across the North are going up in flames.
People are having uprisings.
And folks were so confused because there's this huge expansion of black rights happening.
But they aren't doing anything about the living conditions of black people on the ground in northern cities.
And those people realize that nonviolent protest was not going to resolve the issues that they were facing.
Oh, nonviolent protest is not what actually resolved the civil rights movement.
It was actually giant riots in major American cities, which actually, as studies demonstrate, according to David Shore, who basically had his career ended by people like Nicole Hannah-Jones, who decided he couldn't even mention this.
He pointed out that riots actually cut against the interests of the people who are rioting.
It turns out most Americans don't like rioters.
They're not fans.
And it turns out that the Watts riots and the Detroit riots, it actually not only inhibited racial progress in those cities, it actually emptied out large parts of those cities in the first place.
Here's Nikole Hannah-Johnson.
I mean, she's celebrating violence.
That's what she's doing on CBS News.
And not just then, right?
She's celebrating.
And then you at least might have made the case, although it's hard to make the case that racial violence in Detroit and Los Angeles was useful.
At least in the 1960s, there was a much more solid basis for the notion that America had systemic racism problems, considering that half the country literally enshrined racism in law.
This is the same Nicole Hannah-Jones who said last year that destroying property isn't actually violence.
It is disturbing to see property being destroyed.
It is disturbing to see people taking property from stores.
But these are things.
And violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body.
Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence.
And to put those things, to use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think really, it's not moral to do that.
Give that lady tenure.
That lady deserves tenure.
One of the wisest voices on race in America.
Nicole Hannah-Jones, of course, she also lies about policing generally, right?
She's been lying for years, saying that policing evolved out of slave catching, which of course is not true.
Modern policing, particularly in the South, and as you said, in certain parts of the Northeast, actually evolved out of the slave patrols.
The slave patrols were put in place to deputize white Americans to police enslaved communities, to ensure that enslaved people were only in the places they were allowed, to put down slave insurrections.
And these slave patrols had the right to stop and question any black person, enslaved or free, whom they deemed to be suspicious.
Okay, that of course is not true, as Dan McLaughlin writes at National Review.
To the extent that modern police forces took over the job of enforcing racist laws, that's because enforcing the laws is what police do.
So if you don't like the fact that there are racist laws, then you should really look to the legislature.
But to suggest that modern policing is an outgrowth of slave-catching patrols by civilians is silly.
Policing in some form has existed for as long as there has been civilization, says McLaughlin.
It was typically led by a few government officers, a sheriff, a magistrate, a constable, perhaps a local feudal lord.
You'll remember that the Sheriff of Nottingham is the bad guy in Robin Hood.
But the old English tradition, which came to the American colonies, relied heavily on community volunteers.
According to an article by Gary Potter, okay, the development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England.
In the early colonies, policing took two forms.
It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the watch, or private for-profit policing, which is called the big stick.
The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger.
Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658, Philadelphia in 1700.
The night watch was not particularly effective because watchmen often slept or drank on duty.
Eventually, The major cities created professional police forces.
Professional police forces find their beginnings in France.
They employ gendarmes as far back as 1700.
The creation of professional uniformed police departments can be traced to British Home Secretary Robert Peel, who introduced them in London in 1829.
In fact, bobbies, which as they are known, cops in Britain, are called that today after Robert Peel.
All of this is the real root of American law enforcement.
The notion that this is vigilantes and citizen lynch mobs, okay, that is not where the police came from.
Also, Nikole Hannah-Jones is a believer that the police are the real problem for black Americans, which of course is a lie.
The reality, of course, is that when it comes to policing in the United States, it was dearth of police that led to originally disparate crime statistics between black and white Americans, as Jane Levy of the Los Angeles Times has written.
The fact is that white communities basically said to black communities, particularly in the South, you're on your own.
If murder happens in your communities, we're just not going to police it.
And that led to these wildly disparate murder statistics in white communities versus black communities.
But again, Nicole Hanna-Jones, victim of the American system, tenured professor over at University of North Carolina and celebrated much ballyhoo to editor-in-chief of the New York Times.
And all of this ties into the broader democratic narrative.
Everything I don't like is racist.
And everything that I do like is racially progressive.
Which is why I see Lori Lightfoot, for example, explaining that 99% of the criticism against her is racist and sexist.
Nope!
You're just a really crappy mayor.
There have been questions raised about your temperament and your reaction to criticism.
Tribune editorial used the term irascible.
How much of this do you think might have to do with the fact that you're a woman, and specifically a black woman?
About 99% of it.
Women and people of color are always held to a different standard.
I understand that.
I've known that my whole life.
And the Tribune, or whoever, can write what they want.
What I'm doing is fighting for the residents of this city.
Okay, so again, the generalized Democratic argument these days seems to be that if you oppose anything Democrats do, it's because of racial discrimination.
Joy Behar, of course, the id of the Democratic Party, she says the same thing now about Kamala Harris.
She says the reason Kamala Harris is receiving criticism is because she's a black woman.
No, it's because she's a terrible, terrible politician.
In fact, the only reason that Joe Biden chose her is because she is a black woman.
He himself said this.
Here is Joy Behar trying to pretend that Kamala Harris is a victim of American racism.
What's interesting is that this will be used by the right wing to attack the Biden administration.
And isn't it interesting that they go after a black woman?
They don't go after a white guy, Joe Biden, as much because Joe Biden looks like the base on the right.
He looks like them.
So that's hard for them to get mad at him because then they get mad at themselves.
You see something like psychological is going on there.
Oh, thank you.
That's that's deep, deep, deep thoughts there.
If there's one thing we know, it's that Republicans are never angry at white people like, you know, Harry Reid, or for example, Bill Clinton, or maybe like Hillary Clinton, a white lady.
Obviously, they only get mad at black people.
Obviously.
Alrighty, coming up we're going to get into the latest on the January 6th Commission, which is the latest Democratic ploy in an attempt to drive the notion that Republicans are racist and all the rest.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let us talk about your office needs.
Okay, so you spend a lot of your day in the office on a very uncomfortable chair, and just as you should have a bed that makes sense for you so you can sleep properly.
You need a chair that not only makes sense for you, but is like sitting upon a cloud.
It is like God made this chair.
It's unbelievable.
The xChair.
It has you covered for your office chair needs.
The xChair can give you a massage while you're sitting at your desk.
It can warm your back on cold mornings.
It can cool you off on hot days.
I mean, basically, it's like sitting on a beach in Barbados while you are working.
The secret is not only their patented Dynamic Variable Lumbar Support, which offers unbelievable lumbar support to your lower back, they now have introduced ELEMAX, featuring cooling, heat, and massage therapy.
Imagine regulating your body temperature and getting massage therapy while sitting at your desk.
X Chair ELEMAX Cooling delivers heat and massage technology directly to your core, helping to increase blood flow, muscle recovery, and energy.
All perks that make working from home or the office a joy.
LMAX even offers four different massage modes and fast warming heat technology for therapy to your sore back.
Extra prices are going up July 12th for the first time in two years.
Beat the price increase right now.
Everybody in the office competes to sit on the extra each and every day.
Like while I'm working, it's over there in the production room.
They're basically fist fights every morning as to who gets to sit on the X-chair.
Go to the xchairshapiro.com right now.
It's xchairshapiro.com right now.
That's the letter X, chair, Shapiro.com, or call 1-844-4X-CHAIR to get a hundred bucks off your order.
X-Chair has a 30-day guarantee of complete comfort.
You can finance your purchase for as little as 30 bucks a month.
Go to xchairshapiro.com right now.
Use code X-Wheels for free X-Wheel blade casters, xchairshapiro.com.
Also, it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Dailyware member.
Today, it is Josie Bartelt.
On Instagram, who clearly understands how to ace being a mom with a house full of boys, in this picture, Sharon's happy young sons are sporting binoculars, ear protection, and three examples of the world's most elite and well-made chalice.
The caption reads, quote, Excellent.
With that much high-octane freedom, those tumblers must have been overflowing.
Thanks for the pic.
Thanks for being a Daily Wire member.
Watching the Blue Angels, hashtag leftisteerstumbler.
Excellent.
With that much high octane freedom, those tumblers must have been overflowing.
Thanks for the pick.
Thanks for being a Daily Wire member.
Also, this weekend, got something for you to listen to.
The past is full of heroes.
Many of their stories remain unsung.
That is why we started a new podcast called America's Forgotten Heroes.
It brings to life the legends that these brave men left behind, and the second episode is available today.
This episode focuses on the pioneer of blind flying and recipient of the Medal of Honor, Jimmy Doolittle, who thundered into the Tokyo skies seemingly out of nowhere to lead an airborne raid designed to avenge the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Standing at only five foot six, Jimmy Doolittle's smarts encouraged coward over most.
He revolutionized piloting as we once knew it.
His name may be overshadowed by the raid he led, but it's worth remembering, he wasn't just a pilot, he was a man who changed the world.
Subscribe now to America's Forgotten Heroes on Apple Podcasts.
It is now like a top five podcast right now on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you might listen because the second episode is out today, Friday, July 2nd.
One new action-packed episode drops each day through the 4th of July weekend and into next week for a total of seven episodes.
Because too many heroes never receive the recognition they deserve.
Sharing their stories with you on this Independence Day holiday is our small tribute to their heroism.
If you like what you hear, leave a five-star review.
That always helps with the rankings.
Helps share those incredible stories.
Thanks for listening.
Thank you to the heroes who made such an excellent podcast possible.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
As part of the broader racial push the Democratic Party is making, of course, they are now pushing their January 6th commission.
So this is a partisan commission.
Nancy Pelosi announced it yesterday.
She got Liz Cheney to sign up for the commission so that she could have a veneer of bipartisanship.
Liz Cheney, of course, voted for impeachment of President Trump and has been a longtime critic of Trump.
The problem with the January 6th commission, of course, is that the basic premise of the January 6th commission, usually a congressional commission, is about what Congress can do.
You're not just supposed to hold commissions on random crap.
I understand that we do commissions on random crap now, like we'll have a steroids and baseball commission for no apparent reason, but Congress theoretically is supposed to hold commissions and investigations with regard to legislation or procedures they can shore up.
Instead, it appears that what this commission is designed to do, pretty obviously, is to keep January 6th forefront in people's minds and to link it to broader supposed Republican ideologies of bigotry.
Testimony from the Department of Homeland Security about concerns that are out there.
the opponent as bigoted.
You're gonna use whatever you can find in order to do that.
January 6th is what Nancy Pelosi wishes to use.
She made that absolutely clear yesterday.
Testimony from the Department of Homeland Security about concerns that are out there.
All of these institutions talking about, well, I hate to even go there, but it's what they have said in terms of white supremacy, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, all of these attitudes that have well contributed to what happened on January 6th.
Yeah, by the way, anti-Semitism is totally fine so long as it's members of her own party propagating it.
That's totally cool, by the way, according to Nancy Pelosi, so we should just make that clear.
What the January 6th Commission is pretty obviously designed to do, again, it's a political maneuver.
There is a reason why it is open-ended.
There is a reason why it is supposed to now delve into the ideological causes of January 6th and try to link that to broader Republican talking points.
Liz Cheney, if she provides cover for that sort of report, is doing a grave disservice.
If Liz Cheney is going in there because what she wants to do is use the January 6th Commission to get to the bottom of false allegations about voter fraud and the impact that has, Again, I think that she's providing cover to Democrats, and it's a mistake, but at least you can understand it.
But if the report that comes out of that commission is all about how the Republican Party is rife with white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia, and anyone who voted for Trump obviously agrees with those things, because then Trump went on to say stupid things about the vote in November, and then a bunch of morons and droogs decided to utilize those words Do you believe that effectively by Liz Cheney accepting the committee assignment on January 6th that she's left the Republican conference?
she's done a grave disservice. Kevin McCarthy seems to think this is exactly what's going on. Here is the House Minority Leader.
Do you believe that effectively by Liz Cheney accepting a committee assignment on January 6th that she's left the Republican conference?
I was shocked that she would accept something from Speaker Pelosi. It would seem to me, since I didn't hear from her, maybe she's closer to her than us.
I don't know.
Okay, so apparently she never even spoke to McCarthy about it, which is again, sort of a weird move on Liz Cheney's part.
I'm not sure exactly what her play here is.
And meanwhile, again, all of this is designed to distract from the fact that the White House So, the White House had a mediocre job report.
I say mediocre because some parts of it are good and some parts of it are not so good, but it's certainly not like a universally bad jobs report.
According to the Associated Press, in an encouraging burst of hiring, America's employers added 850,000 jobs in June, well above the average of the previous three months, and a sign that companies may be having an easier time finding enough workers to fill open jobs.
Well, except for the fact that there is still this massive demand for jobs and people aren't filling them fast enough.
I don't know who this kind of poll of economists is who decide how many jobs they think are going to be added or how they come to those numbers, but they've been wrong pretty much every single month for the last several.
So the fact that they underestimated here where they've overestimated the past few months, like, who cares?
The real question is, how fast are we filling the jobs?
The real question is, how fast is the economy recovering?
And the real question is, what's the unemployment rate?
Are people coming back into the workforce?
Wages rose pretty significantly, which again seems to demonstrate that inflation is taking hold.
Not only that, the unemployment rate apparently actually rose a little bit, meaning fewer people are actually still getting back into the workforce.
They're not feeling the pinch necessary for them to actually go back and work anymore.
Friday's report from the Labor Department was the latest sign, according to the AP, that the reopening of the economy is propelling a powerful rebound from the pandemic recession.
Restaurant traffic across the country is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels.
More people are shopping, traveling, attending sports and entertainment events.
The number of people flying each day has regained about 80% of its pre-COVID-19 levels.
Americans' confidence in the economic outlook has nearly fully recovered.
And of course, that is because the pandemic is effectively over.
If you're unvaccinated, it's not over for you.
But if you're vaccinated, Then it's certainly over for you.
And the rates of people getting and dying of COVID in the United States are very, very low at this point.
So that has nothing to do with Joe Biden's economic stimulus.
That has to do with the fact that people are now going back to work.
The result is that many businesses are desperate to hire and have posted a record high number of jobs.
But the competition for workers intensifying, especially at restaurants and tourist and entertainment venues, employers are offering higher pay along with signing and retention bonuses and more flexible hours.
The unemployment rate actually rose from 5.8% in May to 5.9% in June.
Despite the job market's steady improvement, unemployment remains well above the 3.5% rate that prevailed before the pandemic struck.
The economy ran 6.8 million jobs short of its pre-pandemic levels.
The number of advertised job openings reached 9.3 million in April.
So, by the way, the number of joblessings has actually increased since then.
So we still have a systemic problem.
The systemic problem is that we're paying people to stay home.
And this is leading to some pretty severe issues in regards to staffing.
So, It is a good thing that we have more people who are getting jobs.
It is a very bad thing that the labor market is artificially, shortages are now being artificially created, and the labor market and inflation is hitting.
By the way, the White House's pushback on the inflation talking point just sucks right now.
The White House put out a tweet yesterday trying to demonstrate inflation is not a problem for families, even though the price of gas is up like 40% over the last year.
The White House put out a tweet saying, planning a cookout this year?
Ketchup on the news.
That's a pun.
According to the Farm Bureau, the cost of a 4th of July barbecue is down from last year.
It's a fact.
You must heard.
Must heard.
Hot dog.
The Biden economic plan is working and that's something we can all relish.
So how well is it working?
The cost of a 4th of July cookout in 2021 is down 16 cents from last year.
You may remember we had a meat shortage last year because we're in the middle of a pandemic.
Wow.
I mean, look at that.
Huge.
The cost of a 4th of July cookout, down 16 cents.
I mean, my goodness.
Back in Joe Biden's day, that could buy you two packs of camels and a stick of Wrigley's chewing gum.
Huge.
I'm old enough to remember, by the way.
When the Democrats claimed that hundreds of dollars in your pocket thanks to Trump tax cuts meant nothing to the average American family.
Now, they're touting a 16 cent decline in the price of basic foodstuffs for your 4th of July barbecue, even though pretty much the price on everything else has skyrocketed for basic necessities.
Meanwhile, the budget deficit is projected to hit $3 trillion.
According to the New York Times, the U.S.
economy is rebounding from the pandemic downturn faster than expected and is on track to regain all the jobs lost by the middle of next year, partly as a result of enormous amounts of federal spending that will push the budget deficit to $3 trillion for the 2021 fiscal year, according to the CBO.
New forecasts that incorporate the $1.9 trillion stimulus package President Biden signed into law give little credence to warnings by Republican lawmakers and some economists that runaway inflation from all that spending could cripple the economy.
Instead, the Budget Office predicted a recent spike in prices for cars, airline tickets, and other products would be temporary and begin to recede this year.
Administration officials downplayed the deficit projections.
Instead, they focused on the predictions for economic growth because GDP can be gamed by simply injecting government spending into the system.
If the government spends a lot of money, that goes into the GDP.
So you can game those GDP stats by simply inflating the currency, by providing easy credit, by providing loose credit.
And all of that is a way to artificially boost the economy and create what is, in fact, a fairly massive bubble.
And this is, as I have been warning, one of the big problems here.
A lot of people on the right are focused in on the inflation issue.
Inflation may turn into a systemic long-term issue.
It is just as possible, maybe more possible, that what we are, in fact, going to get is a steady sort of stagflation or a steady deflation in which the government keeps pumping money, trying to provide loans, and people don't want to take the loans because people just aren't buying.
They've kind of maxed out.
There are a bunch of conflicting signs right now in the economy.
According to the New York Times, again, same day, office vacancies soar in New York, a dire sign for the city's recovery.
Nearly 19% of all office space in Manhattan has no tenant, the highest on record.
According to Matthew Hogg, even as New York City reopens and pursues a long road to economic recovery, the pandemic's lasting legacy of a changing workplace is emerging as a major obstacle to the revival of the vital commercial districts that help fuel the city's economy.
Across Manhattan, 18.7% of all office space is available for lease, a jump from more than 15% at the end of 2020, and more than double the rate from before the pandemic, according to Newmark, a real estate services company.
Meanwhile, we also know that the restaurant grant program that was put out by the federal government turned into kind of a boondoggle.
A $28.6 billion federal relief fund for restaurants and other food businesses closed on Wednesday after running out of money, having fulfilled fewer than a third of the grant requests it received.
It turns out that even the attempt to fill in the gaps created by the pandemic were a failure as soon as government got involved.
More than 370,000 business owners applied for more than $75 billion in funding, nearly three times what the program had available.
Around 105,000 businesses were approved for grants, which averaged just over $272,000, which of course is going to support a restaurant with several workers for like five minutes.
So, yeah, again, all of the stimulus was directed in the wrong direction.
Well, the good news is that the United States is focused globally on making business less competitive.
In order to shore up the fact that the United States is creating new regulations and new taxes for businesses, we are trying to cudgel countries around the world into raising their own taxes on corporations, which will result in price inflation.
When you artificially boost the tax prices on corporations, they are going to pass that down to consumers.
So get ready to feel the crunch that way.
So, mixed record coming from the Biden administration on the economy at best.
At best.
They gotta cover that with something.
Because 2022 lurks around the corner.
And the Biden administration's policies have not, in fact, forwarded economic recovery.
They've suppressed economic recovery.
If they just got out of the way, they'd be much better off.
But they can't, because it runs counter to Joe Biden's LBJ-type, world-beating agenda.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of The Ben Shapiro Show.
First, you cannot forget to end your week.
Check out The Andrew Klavan Show.
Drew's shows every Friday.
He's got an exciting evening planned for you.
So head on over to dailywire.com at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 6 p.m.
Central.
Tune in.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Bluver.
Production manager, Pavel Lydowsky.
Associate producer, Bradford Carrington.
Post producer, Justin Barber.
The show is edited by Adam Sievitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
Production assistant, Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright, Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection