All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2022 - The Ben Shapiro Show
46:06
Whoopi Goldberg Suspended From “The View” | Ep. 1425
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Whoopi Goldberg gets suspended from The View for two weeks.
A new study from Johns Hopkins finds the lockdowns had no impact on COVID-19 deaths, and the U.S.
national debt hits $30 trillion.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
First, you really should take a look at your monthly bills.
What you'll see is that your biggest bill every month is your mortgage, because that's true for pretty much everybody.
So if you could get that mortgage lowered, why wouldn't you do that?
Now is the best time to refinance because, heck, the Fed is going to be Tapering, they're going to be raising the interest rates.
This is going to have an impact on mortgage rates.
So now is the time to kind of slip in under the wire.
Go check out American Financing, America's Home, for home loans and get that free mortgage review.
You can learn about custom loan options that can save you up to $1,000 a month.
That's right, every month.
From lower rates to shorter terms, even debt consolidation, their salary-based mortgage consultants can do all of it.
And they never charge upfront or hidden fees.
So why not learn more?
If you like what you hear, you can pre-qualify for free.
Possibly skip two mortgage payments, and you may close in as fast as 10 days.
Just call 866-721-3300.
That's 866-721-3300.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net, NMLS 182334, NMLSConsumerAccess.org.
Go check them out.
866-721-3300.
That is 866-721-3300 to get started on that refi.
721-3300 or visit American financing.net NMLS 182334 NMLS consumer access.org.
Go check them out.
866-721-3300 that is 866-721-3300 to get started on that refi.
Okay.
So whoopie Goldberg yesterday, she did her full apologies.
You'll remember that two days ago, Whoopi Goldberg went on The View, and she suggested that the Holocaust was not about race.
And this tied into a broader ideology of the left, which suggests that Jews are white people, and therefore, the Holocaust was actually white people attacking white people, which is a thing she actually said on air.
Then she went on Stephen Colbert, where she quasi-apologized, and then doubled down and suggested once again that the Holocaust was not about racism because it was white people attacking other white people.
She issued a written statement.
The written statement came out before the Colbert appearance, but probably was written after she had taped for Colbert already.
In any case, she came out on the air yesterday, and then she did her fulsome apology.
Here was Whoopi Goldberg apologizing on The View yesterday.
I said something that I feel a responsibility for not leaving unexamined, because my words upset so many people, which was never my intention.
I said that the Holocaust wasn't about race, and it was instead about man's inhumanity to man.
But it is indeed about race, because Hitler and the Nazis considered Jews to be an inferior race.
Now, words matter, and mine are no exception.
I regret my comments, as I said, and I stand corrected.
I also stand with the Jewish people as they know, and y'all know, because I've always done that.
Well, I mean, to be technical, you haven't.
I mean, I'm old enough to remember when Whoopi Goldberg was retweeting things about massacred Palestinians by the terrible Jews over in Israel.
She tweeted way back in November of 2012, question, who started this round of fighting between Palestinians and Israel?
Everyone wants to retweet about their side.
Someone explain, please.
And then she retweeted a comment suggesting that men, women and children in Gaza, Palestine have been getting massacred for the past week.
Right.
That is what she retweeted.
So, yeah, I mean, It's ignorant and she's been reflective of the left's perspective on Jews and their place in the intersectional pyramid for quite a while here.
So no, I don't believe that she has shifted her worldview about the Holocaust.
I believe that she was cuddled into quietude about what she actually thinks.
I mean, she basically said that on Colbert.
She was like, yeah, I've heard all of your criticism and I don't want to hear it anymore, so I'll just take your word for it.
I'll take your word for it.
OK, fine.
So here's the deal.
She's now been suspended for a couple of weeks, according to TV Line.
She's been suspended for two weeks.
ABC News President Kim Godwin confirmed the suspension on Tuesday and released a statement saying, Effective immediately, I am suspending Whoopi Goldberg for two weeks for her wrong and hurtful comments.
While Whoopi has apologized, I've asked her to take time to reflect and learn about the impact of her comments.
The entire ABC News organization stands in solidarity with our Jewish colleagues, friends, family, and communities.
So, today's episode of The View aired with four co-hosts, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Sarah Haines, and Tara Setmire.
So, again, Combined IQ, that of a kumquat.
The uproar began on Monday's episode of the ABC daytime talk show on that conversation over the graphic novel Mouse and a Tennessee school board not using it for 8th graders and then she had issued an apology on Monday night where she quoted Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL and then she went on Colbert and all the rest of it.
So apparently some of the other ladies of The View are very upset about all of this.
They say that, really, she shouldn't be suspended for any of this sort of stuff, and they're angry about all of this.
But here is the thing.
You set the standard.
Now, in a normal world, I would say that she shouldn't be suspended.
Because I'm basically in favor of people being able to say whatever they want to say, and so long as they aren't calling for violence, and so long as they aren't overtly reflecting Nazi tautologies, then I think they should pretty much be able to stay on the air.
Which is why I've never called for the deplatforming of pretty much anyone.
Including, by the way, people who I think are absolutely horrifying in every available respect.
In fact, even if people are Nazis, I generally think that they shouldn't be taken off places like Twitter or Facebook.
Because I believe that the best rebuttal to that sort of terrible speech is better speech.
And so, I normally wouldn't think that Whoopi Goldberg should be removed from air.
I mean, they knew what they had when they hired her, and nothing has changed since then.
Do they have the right to suspend her?
Sure, they have the right to suspend her in the same way they have the right to suspend Roseanne Barr.
But here is where the fun comes to play.
Okay, so here's the thing.
They didn't just suspend Roseanne Barr for making a racist statement about Valerie Jarrett.
They fired Roseanne Barr and took the top-rated sitcom off the air.
So, here is the deal.
If you guys are going to play this game, where if somebody is openly identified as anywhere close to a conservative and they say something that is a bad thing, little trademark symbol, if somebody says a bad thing, and they are completely removed from their job, then you don't get to suspend Whoopi Goldberg, you have to fire her.
These are the standards, and you set them.
And you don't get to play by two sets of standards.
I know there are a lot of people on the right today who are just out and out defending Whoopi Goldberg.
You know she should keep her job.
On a principled level, I agree with you.
She should keep her job.
But the left does not live on that principled level anymore.
And so mutually assured destruction must be achieved here.
Because the way that the system currently works is that if you are somebody who is even remotely to the right of Karl Marx, And you say something that the left perceives as bad, they will attempt to deplatform you, they will attempt to destroy your advertisers, and they will demand that you be silenced.
And until the left learns that this standard applies to everyone or no one, it should apply to everyone.
Until the left learns that they don't get to play this game where Whoopi Goldberg goes off the air for two weeks, but if you're a conservative and you say something similar, then they knock you off air forever, then Whoopi Goldberg should be knocked off air forever.
Them's the rules.
You made them, and now you get to live with them.
The double standard is significantly worse.
The double standard is significantly worse than holding them to their own standard here.
The reason being, if one side applies the rules and one side does not apply the rules, there really are no rules.
There is just a cudgel.
And that's what the left has been using.
I'll take an example.
So Ilya Shapiro, who said something super not racist on Twitter about Joe Biden's Supreme Court pick.
He is now under investigation by the administration over Georgetown Law.
You'll recall that what the crime was that Ilya Shapiro committed was he posted on January 26th following Joe Biden's pledge to put a black woman on the Supreme Court.
What he tweeted was, quote, objectively, best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid, progressive, and very smart.
Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian Indian American.
But alas, doesn't fit into latest intersectional hierarchy, so we'll get lesser black woman.
Thank heaven for small favors?
Okay, so what he meant by that is we will get a person who is lesser, not because they are black, but we will get a black woman who is of lesser caliber than this other judge that Ilya Shapiro was citing as quite brilliant and far to the left.
Okay, they took this as he's a racist because he thinks that any black woman, and because of her blackness, is lesser than this other judge, Sri Srinivasan.
Well, that's really a misread, and it's an obvious misread.
It doesn't matter.
Georgetown suspended him pending investigation, and they might fire him.
Not a two-week suspension.
They might just fire him.
In fact, they held a full-scale grievance session with the students on Monday.
According to National Review, the aggressive cancellation campaign against Ilya Shapiro continues.
On Monday, Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor announced that Shapiro would be put on administrative leave from his new post at the law school's Center for the Constitution, penning an investigation into a series of tweets that Shapiro posted on January 26th, criticizing the use of racial preferences in Supreme Court nominations.
Now, number one, what investigation is necessary?
The tweets are public.
You can read them, and then you can have an opinion.
Like, what invest— would he get the FBI on this, exactly?
It's not about that.
It's about telling the students that we have entered an investigation so that you can dump him.
Student activists were unsatisfied on the heels of a Georgetown Black Law Student Association petition calling for Shapiro's termination.
A message went out last night announcing that a coalition of Georgetown law students will gather for a sit-in calling for the immediate termination of Ilya Shapiro and for the administration to address BLSA demands.
According to this columnist for National Review, Nate Hockman, reporting, When I showed up at the Georgetown University Law Center library this morning to report on the sit-in, I was denied access by school security.
But I caught the second half of a livestream of the event, broadcast via BLSA's Instagram page.
Dean Treanor himself was front and center, accompanied by Mitch Balin, GULC's Associate Vice President and Dean of Students, Sheila Foster, the Associate Dean for Equity and Inclusion, and Amy Uelman, the Director of the school's Mission and Ministry program.
A chastened-looking trainer spent more than an hour answering questions from what appeared to be the BLSA leadership team in a closed auditorium.
The dean, striking an apologetic tone, echoed the language of the activists in the crowd, assuring the assembled student he was appalled by the painful nature of Shapiro's tweets and promised to listen, learn, and ultimately do better.
But he also seemed to be attempting to appease the students without committing to any definitive disciplinary action for Shapiro.
Since we're a private institution, the First Amendment doesn't apply to us, he said.
It's not the First Amendment that's the university's guideline.
On the other hand, the university does have a free speech and expression policy which binds us.
The crowd was skeptical, directly criticizing Treynor's messaging as dishonest and pushing for more aggressive action against Shapiro.
One student floated the idea of defunding the entire Center for the Constitution if Shapiro were allowed to remain.
You can do as much diversity training as you want with the staff, the student continued.
But I feel like the center has a certain ideology.
So I really want you to defend why we need it.
Beyond like, you know, free speech and beyond diversity of opinion.
I want us to think critically about why we still need it.
Trainer said he thinks the center is important, but quickly added that he wanted to, quote, draw a line between conservatism and things that are racist.
At another juncture, a student demanded that the dean cover for the classes that the activists had missed as a result of the sit-in, suggesting that the move be part of a reparations package for black students.
She followed up by insisting that students be given a designated place on campus to cry Is there an office they can go to?
I just don't know what it would look like.
But if they want to cry, if they need to break down, where can they go?
Because we're at a point where students are coming out of class to go to the bathroom to cry.
And this is not in the future, she added.
This is today.
Dean Balin said, it is really, really hard to walk out of a class or meeting in tears.
And you should always have a place on campus where you can go.
And if you're finding that you're not getting the person that you want to talk to or not getting the space you need, reach out to me anytime, anytime, and we will find you a space.
Another student pressed the deans to send out an email attacking BLSA's critics.
So if you oppose them, it's because you are in league with slaveholders.
are attacking us. They are only here because our ancestors were sold for them to be here, she said. So if you oppose them, it's because you are in league with slaveholders. And I think it's a very important fact that it is not talked about explicitly enough because we are still being attacked.
Trainer maintained a deferential tone.
Dean Foster said, what I hear today is you lost our trust as an institution.
And we get that.
And we take that responsibility and accountability.
We have to take accountability.
And then there are murmurs of agreement in the audience.
And Dean Traynor said, as Dean Foster said, we've lost your trust.
We're hoping to get it back, which is why we are sitting here today.
Now, the hilarious thing about all of this is that Georgetown Law has professors Who have said insane things in the past.
I mean, there is a professor who suggested recently that people who voted for Trump should basically be destroyed.
Aaron Siberian at the Free Beacon recently reported that there were professors at the school who overtly called for discrimination against anybody who would work for a Trump-appointed judge, for example.
All of this is absurd.
Because this is the way that this works.
Right, Nate Hawk, Aaron Siberian wrote that there was a professor named Heidi Lee Feldman in 2020 who tweeted that law professors and law school deans should not support applications from our students to clerk for any judge supported by Trump.
Quote, to work for such a judge indelibly marks a lawyer as lacking in the character and judgment necessary for the practice of law.
The tweets appear to violate Georgetown's non-discrimination policies and Washington DC's, which prohibit discrimination and harassment based on a political affiliation.
Were there any sort of consequences for that?
No, of course not.
Of course there were no consequences for that, because the double standard only applies to one side.
That is the way that this works.
We'll get to more of this in just one moment, because this also applies to Joe Rogan and Spotify.
Again, either the standard is that if you make a boo-boo, you go away forever, for everyone, which is an unlivable standard, we know it, and they know it, or we continue to play the game where they apply the standard to you, but not to themselves.
And that is not a standard, that is just a weapon.
We'll get to more on this in just one moment.
First, the S&P 500 is experiencing one of its worst starts to the year ever.
Last week, market volatility spiked to its highest level since the start of the pandemic.
This could be one reason why some Americans are investing more in alternative assets like blue chip art.
You're probably thinking, why art?
Well, according to Citi, when volatility raged in 2020, blue chip art prices outpaced the other 10 major asset classes.
Additionally, Citi found art has a low correlation to stocks.
In other words, if the stock market crashes, the prices of high end paintings might not crash alongside it.
Historically, only the ultra rich could access this investment, right?
I mean, you can't afford a Renoir or something.
But with a new investing app called Masterworks, you can invest in blue chip art as well.
Over 320,000 people have signed up.
If you want to add this asset to your portfolio, just log on to masterworks.io slash ben for priority access.
That is masterworks.io slash ben.
Before deciding to invest, carefully review the important disclosures at masterworks.io slash disclaimer.
Go check them out today.
I have some nice art in my home.
But if I could not afford nice art, but I wanted to invest in art, this would be the place to go.
Masterworks.io slash ben for priority access.
Making a market available to people that just wasn't available before.
Masterworks.io slash ben for priority access.
Okay, so.
It is important here to mention that the sort of argument that the nationalist conservative crowd has made And it's somewhat well taken is the idea that classical liberalism has no sort of systemic ability to reject the double standard that the left is currently applying.
So what the left basically says is that if you say a bad thing, you should go away forever unless you're on our side, in which case you should stay forever.
Classical liberals defend that against that by saying everybody should be allowed to say what they want.
But the problem with that is, of course, everybody has standards as to what they think should be inside the Overton window and what should be outside the Overton window.
And so what nationalist conservatives say, and I would say traditional conservatives have always said, is that when it comes to private institutions, particularly private institutions that are geared toward the right, classical liberalism is not enough.
That either institutions retain a certain orientation toward virtue and decency, or they don't.
And once you get rid of those orientations, they are quickly replaced by a bunch of hypocritical leftists who cite classical liberalism in order to promote their own viewpoints, and then immediately turn on classical liberalism the minute it no longer suits them.
In other words, classical liberalism can only abide in a situation where everybody agrees to the terms of the debate.
If not everybody agrees to the terms of the debate, then classical liberalism just becomes a weapon of a certain side.
And that is what has happened here.
That's what happened in places like Georgetown Law.
That's what's happening with regard to The View.
They will say, Whoopi Goldberg ought to keep her job because people ought to have freedom of speech.
Except not so fast, you, Ilya Shapiro.
Not so fast, you, Joe Rogan.
Doesn't apply to you.
If classical liberalism is not agreed to by all sides, it is not good enough.
And you can see the slide at Georgetown Law in particular, from one of these perspectives to another, to a third.
This is a good, well-taken point by Matthew Schmitz, senior editor at First Things Magazine, which is a sort of Catholic conservative publication.
He points out in 1950, the president of Georgetown denounced the quote, sacred fetish of academic freedom, saying that instead, you actually have to focus in on true concepts.
The dean of Georgetown at that point said, the sacred fetish of academic freedom.
This is the soft underbelly of our American way of life.
And the sooner it is armor plated by some sensible limitations, the sooner will the future of this nation be secured from fatal consequences.
Two test questions, which imply limitation, come to mind at once when the matter of academic freedom is discussed.
The first is, is the matter being taught true or false?
The second, if it is false and presented as such, may one prudently suppose that a good and not evil end will eventuate from its exposition.
The true and the good then are the natural limitations of freedom.
This is not an area for opinion because opinion does not delineate.
For by its very nature, it packages the false with the true.
In other words, if the left uses classical liberalism in order to get into the gate and then persuades everybody that everybody to the right is garbage and throws them out the front door, has that been a victory for classical liberalism?
This is a well-taken question because we're not talking here about the government imposing limitations.
We're talking about private institutions.
So what this really does speak to is the idea that if you are going to build an institution on the right, maybe instead of building it around the basic principles of classical liberalism per se, you might consider building it around actual values.
Because otherwise the left is just going to use classical liberalism as a weapon.
Now, listen, in the best of all possible worlds, here's what we have in American society.
We have the old bargain.
The old bargain was classical liberalism obtained because the backdrop to classical liberalism is a moral and virtuous people, as John Adams once suggested.
John Adams suggested that the only way that you could have freedom is if the people themselves were moral and virtuous.
When you have a non-moral, non-virtuous people, in fact, when the idea of morality and virtue have been thrown out the window or have been substituted for by militant secular leftism, then freedom is no longer freedom.
Freedom is just either libertinism or it is the reverse of freedom.
It is censorship from the left.
And that is what we are having right now.
So there are two ways to fight that.
One way is to reestablish a sense of morality and virtue in the American people.
And that does require institutions that are dedicated to morality and virtue rather than the precepts of classical liberalism.
The other is to hold the left to account to the tenets of classical liberalism or hold them to account to their own tenets.
But one of the two has to happen.
Either everybody gets to stay on the air or nobody gets to stay on the air.
The left doesn't get to have it both ways.
In other words, the left is trying to have it both ways.
This is true, for example, with Spotify, where the problems continue to grow.
According to showbiz411, Graham Nash wants Spotify to teach our children's facts, not lies.
The Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young singer has now joined Neil Young in asking Spotify to remove his songs from their service.
This was after Joe Rogan's quasi-apology sort of apology.
David Crosby has sided with Neil Young as well.
He said on Twitter, if he controlled his catalog, he'd remove it from Spotify.
Crosby sold the rights last year.
He has no say about his Spotify participation.
And of course, this is snowballing.
There are other celebrities who want to get in on the act, and that is being forwarded by the actual government.
Right now, it actually does turn into a First Amendment issue of Jen Psaki overtly pressuring Spotify to quash Joe Rogan.
Here is Jen Psaki suggesting that COVID disclaimers are not enough.
There's quote unquote more that can be done.
Our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources, for that matter, be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as COVID-19.
That certainly includes Spotify.
So this disclaimer, it's a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation and misinformation while also uplifting Accurate information.
Ultimately, you know, our view is it's a it's a it's a good step.
It's a positive step.
But there's more that can be done.
There's more that can be done when the federal government is now actually pressuring companies to violate free speech principles.
That is a First Amendment violation.
And this is super dangerous, which is why, again, whoopie should lose her job.
Again, let's hold them to their standard.
Whoopie should lose her job.
She was purveying misinformation.
This means she should lose her job.
If they're gonna ha- You made this bed, you lie in this bed.
Should be the rule from the right.
You made it, you lie in it, or we go weapons down and we try to reestablish some sense of classical liberalism in the country by agreement.
Otherwise, it will be all-out warfare here.
All right, in just one second, we'll get to the insanity of the race talk of the left.
There are a couple stories that pop to mind immediately.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, if you want a new podcast to look forward to each week, one that's entertaining, informative, and packed with actionable content, you need to check out the Jordan Harbinger Show.
It's a top-shelf podcast named The Best of Apple in 2018.
Don't just ignore this suggestion like you do some other suggestions about you should listen to this podcast.
You're like, oh, I'm not going to.
No, actually go check out Jordan's podcast.
We are fans here at The Daily Wire.
Jordan dives into the minds of fascinating people.
From athletes to authors to scientists to mobsters to spies, Jordan Harbinger has an undeniable talent for getting his guests to share never-been-heard-before stories and thought-provoking insights.
I mean, he's had on people ranging from like Kobe Bryant to Dan Carlin to Scott Adams and Oliver North.
He has this strangely relatable weekly segment, Feedback Friday, where Jordan covers advice on everything from psycho family situations to relationships to networking as well.
It's always interesting.
It's always fascinating.
You always learn something.
You might not always agree with Jordan, but you'll always find something interesting on his podcast.
You can't go wrong with adding the Jordan Harbinger Show to your rotation.
It's interesting.
There's never a dull episode.
Search for the Jordan Harbinger Show.
That's H-A-R-B as in boy, I-N as in Nancy, G-E-R on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Okay.
Meanwhile, I have to say that the White House is suggesting that they are authorities on racism, which is what they are constantly doing.
They're authorities on misinformation and racism.
The media, also authorities on misinformation and racism.
Two less reliable sources on these topics have yet to be found.
The media and the White House.
They're just garbage at this.
The latest example of this is an article from NBC News that came across the transom and it says, experts say framing affirmative action as anti-Asian bias is dangerous.
My favorite thing that the media does, it really is one of my favorite things, is when they have an article framed as experts say, Because you know how they do these experts say article.
What they do is they find someone with a PhD next to their name, who they already agree with, and then they say, up, experts say.
Really, do all the experts say?
Yeah.
Is that what the experts say?
Experts in what, precisely?
There's no question that affirmative action as currently constituted is biased against Asian Americans.
That's what the statistics show.
But according to NBC News, to even bring that up is dangerous.
Again, this is a free speech issue for the left, because once you start calling things dangerous, you're suggesting it should be censored.
That is the goal.
This is what they've said about misinformation on COVID-19 with regard to Rogan.
This is what they said about Ilya Shapiro, right?
All this stuff is quote-unquote dangerous.
It's very dangerous.
And because it's dangerous, it should be silenced.
Classical liberalism does not apply to these people.
They don't think it applies to them.
This is why they use the framing of dangerous.
Because if words are dangerous, then I can use force to shut down your words.
So, Kimmy Yam writes for NBC News, quote, After the Supreme Court announced that it will hear the affirmative action cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, experts are cautioning against the framing of race-conscious admissions as a form of anti-Asian hate, a tactic that's been employed by conservatives.
A number of Republican members of Congress, anti-affirmative action groups, and others have in recent months conflated the race-conscious policy with the anti-Asian racism and pandemic-fueled violence against Asians.
The comparisons, experts said, could not only jeopardize affirmative action, which has historically helped minority groups, including those of Asian descent, but also undercut the call to mitigate the very real COVID-related racism being directed at Asian Americans.
OK, so slower.
Here is what they are saying.
What they're saying is that if you say that affirmative action is biased against Asians, that it treats Asians as a group and then throws them out the door.
If you say this, then you are somehow fomenting racism against Asians over COVID-19.
This is what the experts say.
Janelle Wong, professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, wow.
The experts.
Says, they weaponize concerns about anti-Asian attacks and violence against other minorities.
This is an old tactic in white supremacy's playbook and should not be allowed to succeed.
Well, why?
What does that have to do with white?
So let me get this straight.
To say that Asian Americans ought not be thought of as second-class citizens when it comes to admission Is to be pro-white supremacy?
No?
That's the way this works?
The Supreme Court will hear two cases next term, which begins in October, in which groups led by Edward Blum, a conservative white lawyer who heads the anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions, accuse the two schools of discriminating against Asian Americans by putting them at a disadvantage and instead valuing black and Latino students more highly.
In this environment, conservatives have amped up a narrative that affirmative action stands as another racist attack against the group.
Representatives Young Kim and Michael Steele and Michelle Steele, both California Republicans, said last April they questioned President Joe Biden's commitment to mitigating anti-Asian hate after the Justice Department dropped an affirmative action case against Yale.
It's dangerous, says Julie Park, associate professor at the University of Maryland's College of Education.
People are vulnerable to misinformation.
And so drawing those types of connections is really dangerous and irresponsible.
Others, including podcast commentator Ben Shapiro, have also attempted to paint the administration's efforts to combat anti-Asian hate alongside the persistence of racist conscious admissions as hypocrisy.
Well, I mean, if I said it, it must be bad.
Or alternatively, you're going to have to explain why it is okay for admissions officials to treat Asian American students as second class and why that differs in terms of racist intent from people who target Asian Americans for hate.
Why?
If you had a country club and it said no Jews allowed, would that not be of the same ilk as people hitting Jews on the street?
Wouldn't that be part of the same generalized racist ideology?
Would it not?
If you had a, let's say, that you had a country club that said no black people here, would that not be part of the same broader racial movement?
Would it not?
You're gonna have to explain why.
But they don't explain why.
They just say that it's dangerous.
It's always dangerous.
And again, the goal of saying that it's dangerous is to silence.
They can't even explain why it's wrong.
They just go straight to dangerous.
Experts, according to NBC News, said the conflation of affirmative action with anti-Asian hate is another transparent attempt by conservatives to use Asian-Americans as a wedge, placing in contention against other marginalized communities.
The reality is much different, said Wong.
Research shows 70 percent of the group is in favor of the policy, according to a 2020 Asian-American voter survey.
Well, how about if they are informed that Asian Americans are widely, disproportionately discriminated against in admissions thanks to such policies?
You think the approval ratings hang out up there?
By the way, a new study shows that 17% fewer Asian American students get into top colleges than otherwise would if you got rid of the affirmative action policies that exist at these places.
It's absurdity piled upon absurdity, but this is the perversion of law, right?
These cases will end up in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.
And the good news is that Joe Biden and the left again, standards only apply to one side.
They can be as racist as they could possibly want to be, which is why Joe Biden is allowed to violate federal civil rights law by openly suggesting that he wants to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring for a Supreme Court slot.
Joe Biden, by the way, he thinks he's allowed to get away with this because the Constitution is always evolving.
So the President of the United States, who is no longer with us, the late departed President of the United States, was speaking yesterday, and he said the Constitution is always evolving.
This is always their take.
Again, the goal for the left is never the rule of law.
It is always the rule of people who agree with us.
This is why they are in favor of magically evolving laws, magically evolving constitutions.
Because this means there is no rule to which they can be held accountable.
There is just whatever they say today.
Here's Joe Biden doing this with the Constitution of the United States, a document written in 1789.
Like, really, good job here, Joe.
There's always a renewed national debate every time we nominate any president that nominates to justice.
Because the Constitution is always evolving slightly in terms of additional rights or curtailing rights, etc.
And it's always an issue.
When he says always evolving, he means no standards.
The rule for the left is no stan- I shouldn't say no standards.
It's always evolving.
When he says always evolving, he means no standards.
The rule for the left is no standards.
I shouldn't say no standards.
Standards for you, no standards for me.
As the old phrase goes, mercy for my friends, the law for my enemies.
This is the way that the left tends to think about these particular issues.
By the way, this is the same guy who says he's guarding the Constitution and still refuses to allow his White House press secretary to say he's not going to pack the court.
Here's the White House press secretary Jen Psaki yesterday being asked if Joe Biden will actually try to pack the court.
And she's like, I can't rule it out, you know.
Does the president plan to decide what he's going to do on Supreme Court reform before he makes his nomination?
He is reviewing the Supreme Court Commission report.
I don't have a prediction of when he will conclude his analysis of that.
And I just ask because the report includes suggestions about things like changing the number of people on the court and you would think he would want to know who, if he's going to increase the size of the court, who he's going to put on first, right?
Trevor, his focus right now is on going through a process that values the seriousness of the role he has as president, where he consults, as you saw today, with Democrats and Republicans to select and nominate an eminently qualified black woman to serve on the court.
That's his focus right now.
His focus is violating the prescriptions of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which is apparently constantly evolving, and also he might pack the Supreme Court.
No rules.
Forever.
Except for my enemies.
Again, except for my enemies.
This happens to be true with regard to COVID as well.
We'll get to that in just one moment.
First, let's talk about your sleep quality.
So, you've been hearing me talk about my Helix Sleep Mattress for quite a while, but here's the thing.
I don't just sleep on my Helix Sleep Mattress.
I sleep on my Allform couch because Helix has gone beyond the bedroom and started making sofas.
They just launched a new company.
It's called Allform.
They're making premium customizable sofas and chairs shipped directly to your door.
What makes an Allform sofa really cool?
Well, for starters, it's the easiest way you can customize a sofa using premium materials at a fraction of the cost of traditional stores.
You can pick your fabric.
It is spill-stain, scratch-resistant.
The sofa color, the color of the leg, sofa size, and shape make sure it is perfect for you and your home.
I've got armchairs and loveseats all the way up to an eight-seat sectional, so there's something for everyone.
You can always start small and buy more seats later on if you want your all-form sofa to grow and change with you when you move.
All-form sofas are also delivered directly to your door.
In the past, if you wanted to order a sofa, you need to hire someone to come and assemble it in your home or break your back trying to put it together.
Allform has simple quick assembly, no tools needed.
I have an Allform sofa.
I picked out the three-seat sofa with chaise in the sand color with espresso legs.
It is fantastic.
I mean, it is so unbelievable.
It looks great.
It is very durable, which is great because my kids wreck everything.
It's extremely comfortable.
If getting a sofa without trying it in store sounds a little risky, you don't need to worry.
You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it.
That's more than three months.
If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free and give you a full refund.
They also have a forever warranty, literally for all time.
Allform is offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash ben.
To find your perfect sofa, check out allform.com slash ben.
Go check it out right now.
Alrighty, we'll get to more on all of this in just one second.
Brand new study showing that Lockdowns were just a giant failure.
First, the first part of Candace Owens' exclusive interview with Dr. Robert Malone aired last night.
It's now streaming only at thedailywire.com.
If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend you do that.
And then get ready for part two that airs tonight, 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central.
After Dr. Malone's recent interview with Joe Rogan sparked backlash for both Rogan and Spotify, Candace is digging in to make sure the voices on all sides of the VAX issue are heard.
Take a look.
In order to evaluate any vaccine, you want to hear both sides of an argument.
All media and information that we are currently encountering is manipulated.
I want to jump in and talk about when your interview with Joe Rogan started going viral.
Not only was Google triggered, a whole range of legacy media were triggered.
It's an entire ecosystem of illegality and corruption.
You should be and you are appropriately outraged about this.
You can judge the value of society by how it treats its children.
Our treatment of our children has been atrocious.
This is the red line, right?
This is the line.
What is it that drives you to keep going toward truth?
I've been given the gift that I might be able to make a positive impact.
How can I walk away from that?
You can watch both parts exclusively at dailywire.com.
Remember, part two premieres tonight, 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central.
If you don't already have a Daily Wire membership, head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now.
Use code science for 25% off.
You're not going to want to miss it.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty, meanwhile, a new Johns Hopkins study is now out and it says that the COVID-19 lockdowns were completely ineffectual.
They really didn't do anything.
According to the Washington Times, lockdowns in the U.S.
and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.
The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.
We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limited gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality, the researchers wrote.
The research paper said lockdowns did have devastating effects on the economy and contributed to numerous social ills.
The report said they've contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy.
Again, you could understand doing some of this stuff at the very beginning when we didn't know how severe the virus was.
But once we knew that it was radically age-striated and health conditions striated, the lockdowns should have been a thing of the past by May 2020.
We should have been telling young, healthy people to go back to work and start socializing.
We should have been telling older people that they should stay out of harm's way until this had become endemic.
That's what we should have done.
We didn't do any of that because we decided that we were going to let government handle all of it, and government is just a giant blunderbuss.
All the government does is create broad, swath policies that are radically ineffectual.
The paper concluded, such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion.
Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.
Researchers at the Imperial College of London predicted that all of these steps, you know, the bans on work and socialization and all of the forced masking, could reduce death rates by up to 98%, and of course that never happened.
The new study by researchers Steve Hanke, Jonas Herbie, and Lars Jonning at Johns Hopkins concludes, quote, Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
They examined deaths early during the pandemic, determined that by the end of the lockdown period study on May 20, 2020, a total of 97,081 people had died of COVID-19 in the United States.
A prominent study at the time had estimated there would be 99,050 deaths without lockdowns.
This was a meta-analysis of dozens of studies examining COVID-19 mortality rates.
They said basically the only thing that might have helped reduce deaths at all was closing the bars.
But other than that, they said limiting people's access to safe outdoor places like beaches, parks, zoos, including outdoor mask mandates, or strict outdoor gathering restrictions, pushing people to meet at less safe indoor places, all of that was idiotic.
Does that mean that we're going to stop this sort of stuff in the future?
No, because here is what the government understands.
The government understands that fear is contagious.
They understand that if they can scare you enough, they can take control of every aspect of your life, which is why they keep trying to scare you about a virus that now has a death rate that is around that of the flu.
This is why they are doing this.
It is for that reason and that reason only.
Fear allows them to do what they want to do.
In fact, there's a brand new study from the researchers from California Institute of Technology.
And what they found is that fear is contagious, that actually broad numbers of people tend to spread fear rather than believing that there is strength in numbers.
They did this kind of fun experiment where they used a haunted house experience with 17 rooms containing various spooky threats during their experiment, and they found that people were actually more scared when the group walking through the house was larger.
The team also found that their fear built up and increased as people moved from room to room.
Scientists say when faced with fear, people are more likely to have a heightened physical response when other people are around, which is why, of course, people watch horror movies in theaters with other human beings.
This phasic effect involves rapid changes the body experiences as it responds to an event and is more likely to happen when other people are dealing with the same thing.
Which makes sense, because, evolutionarily speaking, when someone else gets afraid of a thing, that means everybody in the group should run.
And when one person reacts by freaking out, everybody should freak out, because that way nobody gets eaten by the tiger.
But what this means that if the government can scare a critical mass of people, they can get everybody scared.
Because if all of your friends are scared, you start looking around going, why am I not scared?
And if everybody is scared, you can get away with nearly anything.
The next push, by the way, like you wonder, when is this going to end?
All of the COVID restrictions, when's this going to end?
France is now loosening up.
Denmark has already loosened up.
The UK has loosened up.
When are people in the United States going to get over this?
And the answer is, apparently never.
Omicron, by the way, is already on the way.
I mean, I'm looking at the Omicron case rates in New York.
And right now, if you look at the COVID cases in New York, they've already plummeted.
They've already hit the skids.
Shouldn't this be the number one story in the country?
I mean, it really is amazing.
Okay, so for example, as of two weeks ago, the seven-day case average in New York was 40,000 cases a day.
Today, the seven-day case average is 4,200, and there are only about 2,000 new cases.
The curve looks like a spike, and then it has already receded.
It's over in New York, and they are still doing this nonsense.
The same thing is happening In Massachusetts, where it spiked all the way up to, I don't know, 64,000 cases a day, and now they're down to about 3,000 cases a day.
So the Omicron wave is over, guys.
It's already done.
The spike is finished.
And yet they're still talking about how you must vaccinate your kids, because if you don't vaccinate your kids, then, you know, they could spread it.
Mask and vaccinate your kids.
And this is why Pfizer is now asking U.S.
health regulators to authorize the use of the COVID-19 vaccine in kids under five years of age.
No.
My answer to this is no.
I did not vaccinate any of my kids.
There are now eight, five, and almost two.
They all got Omicron.
They're all fine.
Because this has been true throughout the pandemic.
And yet, presumably, the Biden administration is now going to adopt the attitude that you can only allow your kids to live normal lives if they are two, if they are vaccinated.
Which, of course, is unbelievable.
I mean, even Leanna Nguyen at CNN is like, guys, like, enough is enough.
She says we need to wait until we know what's safe and effective for kids under five rather than just tranching out vaccines to six-month-old babies.
I'm ambivalent right now, John, which is not something that I'd ever thought that I would say about vaccines for under five-year-olds.
I'm the mom of two little kids under five.
I can't wait until they are vaccinated.
But I would wait until we find that the vaccines are safe and effective.
And I'm not sure that we can say that at the moment because we just don't have the data.
Now, I definitely understand the urgency that many parents are feeling, and I can also understand the point of view that, hey, if three doses are being studied, and two doses will give you some level of protection, and the vaccine is safe, then why not give it?
Maybe some parents will make that choice, but I also think that other parents would want to wait until we know that three doses will produce the intended effect.
Why look, it's a rational statement from Leanna Nguyen because they're beginning to realize that all of this is devastating to the political prospects of Democrats in 2022 because the American people are not up for this.
By the way, it is worth noting here that the general effects of pandemic spending are just egregious.
America's national debt over the course of the last week, it just hit the public debt outstanding is now above $30 trillion.
$30 trillion.
I mean, this is just Unthinkable.
I mean, that is an unthinkable statistic.
Government borrowing accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to CNN Business, as Washington spent aggressively to cushion the economic blow from the crisis.
Again, the economic blow from the crisis was largely driven by, wait for it, government itself.
The national debt has surged by about $7 trillion since the end of 2019.
It's impossible to know how much debt is too much.
Economists remain divided over how big a problem this really is.
But the latest debt milestone comes at a delicate time, as borrowing costs are expected to rise.
Because if you have to spend more money to borrow, how are you going to pay off the short-term debt?
Because what we tend to do here in the United States is we borrow more money to pay off the short-term debt.
We take out a second credit card on a routine basis.
Interest costs alone are projected to surpass $5 trillion over the next 10 years and will amount to nearly half of all federal revenue by 2051, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
So that means that half of the money we spend in this country as a government will go to interest payments by 2051.
It'll be faster than that because we ain't gonna stop spending at this clip because there are only two ways to pull out of this.
Way number one is to get responsible and the other is to hit the wall and we are going to hit the wall absolutely without a doubt.
And by the way, if you look at the actual total debt of the United States, like the statistics, it is astonishing how much money we have spent.
It is absolutely crazy how we have added to the debt in this country.
I mean, and by the way, if you look at the debt to GDP ratio by country, we're in pretty bad shape.
I mean, we are not in good shape.
If you look at the debt to GDP ratio right now by country, Countries that are fiscally unsustainable, they're on fiscally unsustainable paths.
You're looking at countries like Italy, right?
133% of their GDP is owed in the national debt.
Or Greece, which is at 174%.
But the United States is catching up really, really quickly.
In 1994, our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 63%.
our debt to GDP ratio was about 63%.
We only held about $4.5 trillion in total public debt as of 1994.
And then if you fast forward to like 2008, we had doubled it, but we were still only at 9.2 trillion by the time George W. Bush left office.
And George W. Bush is a big spender.
When George W. Bush took office in 2001, there was $5.7 trillion of national debt, total public debt.
By the time he left office, it was $9.2 trillion.
But it was really over the course of Barack Obama's administration, we started to blow this thing the F out.
So in 2009, the total U.S.
national debt was $10.6 trillion.
And now, our debt-to-GDP ratio is about 74%, which, by the way, again, is higher than, but not supremely higher than, the debt-to-GDP ratio in 1994, which was 63%.
Remember, it came down a little bit during the early Clinton years, and then it came down, and then it rose slightly during Bush years, and then in the last Bush year, it rose a lot because of the fiscal crisis.
Okay, $10.6 trillion in national debt as of 2009, 74% debt to GDP ratio.
Fast forward to the end of the Obama administration, 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, total national debt $18.9 trillion.
So Barack Obama nearly doubled the national debt.
And these are big numbers now.
Now you're talking about $19 trillion by the time that Barack Obama left office.
And the debt-to-GDP ratio had risen from 74% to 102%.
102.
Today, the debt-to-GDP ratio is approaching Greece levels.
As of April 2020, we had a total U.S.
public debt of about $24 trillion.
Today, it is $30 trillion.
is approaching Greece levels.
As of April 2020, we had a total US public debt of about $24 trillion.
Today, it is $30 trillion.
It is $30 trillion.
By the time we are done with all of this, it's gonna be more like 32, 30, by the end of this year, it's gonna be more like 33, 34 trillion dollars because that's how fast we raised the debt in this country.
And that means that our debt-to-GDP ratio, the GDP in the United States is only about $20 trillion a year.
That means our debt-to-GDP ratio is going to look like 150%, which puts us somewhere in the neighborhood of Lebanon, Greece, and Sudan.
That is not good stuff.
We've been fiscally irresponsible, we've spent too much money, and we have done so on the basis that politicians have told us they can alleviate all of our problems and mitigate against all possible risk so long as we give them complete power over us.
Amazing, amazing stuff.
Alrighty, we'll be back here a little bit later today with an additional hour of content.
In the meantime, go check out The Michael Mould Show.
That is available right now.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Elliott Felt.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our production manager is Pavel Lydowsky.
Associate producer, Bradford Carrington.
Editing is by Adam Saievitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
Production assistant, Jessica Crand.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
New studies suggest the usefulness of ivermectin and the uselessness of lockdowns.
The DHS refuses to deport a drunk driving illegal who killed a Texas teen.
And Georgetown Law students demand a space to cry on campus.
▲
Export Selection