Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 25, 2024 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:01

Border STANDOFF: Texas Fights Back

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So yesterday afternoon, Governor Greg Abbott of Texas issued a letter basically announcing that the state of Texas was going to start enforcing the border.
	They've been doing this for a while.
	They put a bunch of fencing in the middle of the Rio Grande, barriers in the middle of the Rio Grande to prevent people from crossing the border.
	The federal government has objected to that.
	They've used razor wire in state parks that are on the national border.
	And the federal government has objected to all of that.
	Well, yesterday, Greg Abbott, looking at the crisis that has been created by Joe Biden on the southern border, issued what is a rather historic letter.
	And we're going to go through it in its details because what we are watching is now a constitutional crisis that is created entirely by Joe Biden and his evil activities on the border.
	And they are.
	I'm sorry.
	It is an evil thing not to enforce the border of your country, to purposefully say that you're going to leave the border wide open, which is what Joe Biden has done.
	I've been down to the border.
	It is wide open.
	To facilitate that, to basically incentivize the drug cartels to pour millions of people into the United States is a bad thing.
	It is Joe Biden abandoning his constitutional duties.
	It is Joe Biden abdicating the presidency of the United States.
	It is an evil for the president of the United States to do those things.
	It would be the equivalent of a mayor of a large city simply announcing that they are not going to police crime anymore.
	The fundamental duty of the federal government is to protect the people of the United States of America.
	And to protect the borders of the United States of America.
	That's why it is a federally mandated duty for the government of the United States to do that.
	That's why it's a federal issue and not a state issue.
	Andrew Biden has not only signally failed, he has done the opposite of good.
	He has facilitated all of this.
	In the estimates on the number of illegal immigrants who have entered the country, It ranges from a low.
	The low would be like 6 million people have entered the country illegally under Joe Biden.
	There are certain estimates that put that upwards of 10 million.
	And there's no real way to know because, of course, there are a bunch of people who ran across the border and got away, and those are unknown gotaways.
	There are known gotaways and unknown gotaways.
	But Joe Biden has facilitated all this with terrible border policy.
	It is wrong.
	It should be against the law.
	Again, the federal government has one job and one job only in the end, and that is to protect you, to protect your rights.
	There are already laws on the books that prevent illegal immigration.
	Those laws have been in place for decades in the United States.
	It is up to the president of the United States to enforce those laws.
	And again, it is worth noting here that leaving the border wide open is not just incentivizing the Mexican drug cartels to move millions of people across the southern border, It is incentivizing the Mexican drug cartels to move tons of fentanyl across the southern border, which is being used to kill effectively 100,000 Americans a year, depending on the numbers that you're using when it comes to drug overdose.
	Those drugs are pouring over the border.
	Again, this is all facilitated by Joe Biden's policy.
	This was not a problem during the latter years of the Trump administration.
	It just wasn't.
	And it is under Joe Biden, and it is a manufactured crisis.
	Because Joe Biden has decided, just legally speaking, that he was going to get rid of Romaine in Mexico.
	He was going to suggest that if you arrive on America's southern border, throw up your hands and say, I am here because I fear to go to my home country.
	Then we have to process you and release you into the interior of the United States within 72 hours.
	That is basically how Joe Biden's border policies work.
	And he has staffed 90% of border patrol on busing and administrative duty, leaving the rest of the border wide open for the Mexican drug cartels.
	He's turned Border Patrol into a ferry service for illegal immigration.
	You can ask members of Border Patrol.
	They will openly tell you that that is what they are now.
	It used to be that it was their job to track down people who were illegally crossing the border so that they could be detained and then deported.
	And now it is their job to basically act as a facilitation service for illegal entry into the country.
	Why is Joe Biden doing this?
	And there must be a rationale because he is so committed to open borders that he is scuttling his own desire for Ukraine aid, for Israel aid, for Taiwan aid in order to keep those borders open.
	Republicans have proposed fixes on the border that would, for example, most important fix would be not only the Reinforcement of Remain in Mexico, which was a Trump-era policy that Joe Biden refuses to enforce, which would simply say that if you're applying for asylum, you have to wait in Mexico while that asylum request is processed, which would mean that most of those people aren't getting in the country, as opposed to now they arrive, and then again, we detain them for five seconds and then release them, and they quote-unquote wait in the interior and then never show up again.
	It's not just that.
	Joe Biden's asylum policies, they need to be fixed.
	In order to claim asylum in the United States, you should have to show.
	The burden of proof is on you to show that you actually require asylum.
	Right now, you don't even have to make a colorable argument that you require asylum.
	You just claim that you do, and then we release you into the interior.
	H.R.
	2, which is the Republican bill that would shore up all this, Joe Biden is rejecting all aspects of that.
	Even if it means scuttling the aid that Ukraine actually needs in order to maintain its war against Russian invasion.
	Why would he be doing that?
	There are only a couple of possible reasons.
	One is obviously political.
	That Joe Biden and a lot of Democrats believe that many of the illegal immigrants who are crossing the border are going to eventually become Democratic voters.
	And for all the people who are saying, well, you know, they can't vote because they're illegal immigrants.
	You don't need the illegal immigrants to vote.
	All you need to do is for them to get married.
	I have a bunch of young single men who are crossing the border.
	All they have to do is marry an American citizen, and they are now sponsored for citizenship.
	They can now get their green card, which moves them towards citizenship.
	Plus, there is the bet that the Democrats are making that eventually somebody's going to amnesty all these folks, and they'll become American citizens, at which point they're going to vote for Democrats.
	And why would Democrats not think that, given the fact that many of the people who are crossing the border right now are chanting Joe Biden's name?
	I mean, there's video of it.
	Or maybe it's because Joe Biden is ideologically captured by his radical left flank.
	A radical left flank that believes that America is in fact a guilty country on the world stage and therefore has some sort of moral duty to open its borders wide to anybody who wants to come into the country.
	Whatever the reason, Joe Biden has abandoned his duty as president and all of this is the predictable result.
	So, the predictable result is that the state of Texas is looking at this and they're saying, we are getting smacked in the face by illegal immigration.
	We are being told that we have to basically swallow it.
	When the federal government decides not to enforce the law.
	And this raises a bunch of really deep legal and constitutional issues.
	But we have to lead with the moral because here is the reality.
	Joe Biden could solve this tomorrow by simply enforcing the border.
	And by the way, the American people should solve this by not reelecting Joe Biden.
	That would solve this too.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second, but first, folks, 2024 is going to be a wild ride.
	We've, of course, already seen the impact of inflation, the gas pump and the grocery store.
	The dollar is losing its purchasing power and has lost a lot of purchasing power over the past few years.
	So let me ask you a question.
	How are you protecting your savings?
	Consider diversifying with gold from the Birch Gold Group.
	For decades, gold has been the choice of investors and central banks to hedge against inflation.
	I myself have invested with Birchgold to diversify my portfolio.
	That's just the smart way to invest.
	Birchgold can help you create a well-thought-out and balanced investment strategy.
	They'll help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold without paying a penny out of pocket.
	And this month only, when you open a gold IRA with Birchgold, you'll get a free signed copy of my book, The Authoritarian Moment.
	But you need to text BEN to 989898 to qualify.
	Birchgold has been the exclusive gold company of The Daily Wire for the past seven years.
	I buy my gold from them, and you can too.
	Text BEND to 989898 to protect your savings and claim your eligibility for a free signed copy of The Authoritarian Moment today.
	So yesterday, Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, put out a statement.
	Here's what it said, quote, The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the states.
	The executive branch of the United States has a constitutional duty to enforce federal laws protecting states, including immigration laws on the books right now.
	President Biden has refused to enforce those laws, and he's even violated them.
	The result is that he has smashed records for illegal immigration.
	Despite having been put on notice in a series of letters, one of which I delivered to him by hand, President Biden has ignored Texas's demand that he perform his constitutional duties.
	President Biden, says Greg Abbott, has violated his oath to faithfully execute immigration laws enacted by Congress.
	Instead of prosecuting immigrants for the federal crime of illegal entry, President Biden has sent his lawyers into federal courts to sue Texas for taking action to secure the border.
	President Biden has instructed his agencies to ignore federal statutes that mandate the detention of illegal immigrants.
	The effect is to illegally allow their en masse parole into the United States.
	He's right about that.
	That's the so-called catch and release program.
	Instead of detaining people until they actually have their asylum hearing, instead, they have an initial hearing, and then they are released On their own recognizance, into the interior of the United States.
	And again, it's no more than a week.
	I mean, the average right now is probably 72 hours, what I've been told by people at Border Patrol.
	Greg Abbottes, by wasting taxpayer dollars to tear open Texas's border security infrastructure, President Biden has enticed illegal immigrants away from the 28 legal entry points along the state's southern border, bridges where nobody drowns, and into the dangerous waters of the Rio Grande.
	Which of course is true.
	One of the things drug cartels are doing right now is they don't actually want illegal immigrants processed at these stations.
	They want to flood certain border points With illegal immigrants, so as to draw the Border Patrol to those areas where it is their duty to care for the illegal immigrants who are entering the country and claiming asylum.
	And then what does that do?
	Well, if you take all the people who are spaced along the border, and there aren't that many Border Patrol agents, you have them spaced along the border trying to maintain eyes on miles of the border.
	And then you centralize them at this point right here, which is where all the illegal immigrants are rushing across, not any Border Patrol station.
	Well, what does that do?
	It leaves the rest of the border wide open.
	And that's when you get illegal immigrants, who in fact are drug smugglers, being shifted across the border by the drug cartels.
	Greg Abbott says, Under President Biden's lawless border policies,
	more than 6 million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border in just three years.
	This is more than the population of 33 different states in this country.
	The illegal refusal to protect the states has inflicted unprecedented harm
	on the people all across the United States.
	He continues, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries
	who wrote the U.S.
	Constitution foresaw that states should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border.
	That is why the framers included both Article 4, Section 4, which promises the federal government shall protect each state against invasion, and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges the state's sovereign interest in protecting their borders.
	The failure of the Biden administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article 4, Section 4 has triggered Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, which reserves to the state the right of self-defense.
	For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas's constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.
	That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.
	The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority as well as state law to secure the Texas border.
	Okay, so.
	One of the big questions here is what does that mean?
	So let's start with the very legal basics here.
	Greg Abbott has done nothing to violate the law thus far.
	Nothing.
	He's not violated federal law.
	He's not violated state law.
	People who are accusing him of having done so thus far by having Texas state troopers put out razor wire in state parks, they don't know what they're talking about.
	The Supreme Court ruled recently that the federal government has the capacity to Withdraw the razor wire, but they said nothing about whether the state of Texas is allowed to put up the razor wire.
	So the Supreme Court did not rule that it was illegal for the state of Texas to, for example, put barriers in the Rio Grande.
	They just ruled that the federal government is allowed to remove those barriers.
	They removed an injunction against the federal government right there.
	It didn't say what Texas was doing was illegal in any way.
	So anybody who's telling you different in the media today that Texas is doing something illegally, that is not true.
	Now, if Texas were to prevent the federal government from actually dismantling the razor wire, for example, then you start to get into some dicey legal issues.
	So, let's get to exactly what Joe Biden is doing here that is facilitating all of this.
	So, first of all, he's exploiting the law for his own agenda.
	Right?
	He's exploiting it.
	Now, he's following Barack Obama's example in doing this.
	He's been using executive action to stop prosecution of so-called dreamers, right?
	That's the same thing that Barack Obama did.
	A DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, that's been kicking around the legal system since, like, 2010.
	And some people have ruled it illegal and others have ruled it not illegal.
	In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration couldn't even rescind DACA, at least not in the way they did it, which is a ridiculous ruling.
	So they said that Barack Obama could actually issue DACA, which effectively legalized Millions of illegal immigrants.
	But Donald Trump couldn't reverse that policy by executive action.
	He said that he'd fail to go through the Administrative Procedures Act.
	It's a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
	But it was really, really silly.
	But it is certainly a very weird legal motion that the president just has the simple ability to not enforce the law.
	That's a very weird legal idea.
	In fact, in 1975, for example, there was a federal case in which the President of the United States refused to actually spend money that had been allocated by Congress for a particular purpose.
	And the Supreme Court found that he couldn't do that.
	That if the Congress said, you must spend X dollars, the President could not spend half of those dollars.
	He had to spend X dollars.
	So if the executive branch is charged with executing the laws, then why in the world would the executive branch have the power to not execute the laws?
	Now, they can claim that they need more resources, but that's not what Joe Biden is really claiming right now.
	He says he wants more resources in order to facilitate more illegal immigration, not in order to actually enforce America's southern border.
	He doesn't want more policing power on the southern border in any real way.
	That's why Republicans are objecting.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, let's say that you were climbing up the Empire State Building while simultaneously being targeted by the U.S.
	Air Force.
	After all, what else would you do if you were a giant gorilla that got kidnapped from Skull Island?
	Well, eventually, the sheer force and might of the U.S.
	military wins out and you tumble to your death.
	Well, as you fall, You'd be thinking you wish you had some life insurance so that your human girlfriend wouldn't be left with nothing.
	Start the new year off knowing you found the right life insurance to protect your family with PolicyGenius.
	PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and find your lowest price.
	Their licensed agents work for you, not the insurance companies, which means you can trust their guidance because they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another.
	There are no added fees, your personal information, Is kept private.
	My wife and I, we have tons of life insurance.
	You should have life insurance too.
	It is super satisfying to check life insurance off that to-do list.
	A good life insurance plan can give you peace of mind that if something happens to you, your family will be able to cover mortgage payments, college costs, or other expenses.
	Life insurance through your workplace might not offer enough protection for your family's needs.
	It's not going to follow you if you leave your job.
	And so you really need to get more life insurance like right now.
	With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policy starting at just 292 bucks per year for a million dollars in coverage.
	Some options offer same-day approval and avoid those unnecessary medical exams.
	Save time and money.
	Give your family a financial safety net with PolicyGenius.
	Head on over to PolicyGenius.com slash Shapiro or click that link in the description.
	Get your free life insurance quotes.
	See how much you could save.
	That's PolicyGenius.com slash Shapiro.
	So, that brings us to a deeper issue, and it's sort of a little bit down the road from where we are right now, because we've not actually gotten there yet, but it's the one that's sort of in everybody's mind, and that is whether the state of Texas can unilaterally enforce immigration law, even if the federal government wants them not to.
	So the best comp here is from 2010.
	That year, the state of Arizona passed a law called SB 1070.
	You may remember this.
	The Arizona governor at the time was a woman named Jan Brewer.
	And that law contained four provisions, the Arizona law.
	The first provision was that it created a state law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States.
	So it was just a federal crime for the illegal immigrants to be in the United States that would be prosecuted by the federal government, then you'd be deported.
	It would be a state law crime.
	So Arizona could jail you for being unlawfully present in the United States.
	Second, it created a state law crime for working or seeking to work while you weren't authorized to do so.
	So, it's a federal crime for people to use a false social security number, for example, to work illegally in the United States.
	This created a comparative state law crime based on that.
	Third, it required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained.
	That was an anti-sanctuary city policy.
	This is the Arizona SB 1070 law that ended up going to the Supreme Court.
	That's why we're talking about it.
	Okay, so that required that if you are a cop and you pull somebody over, you have to check whether they are legally here or not.
	And then fourth, the law authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States.
	So you could just arrest people and then presumably you would turn them over to the federal government.
	So the question on the table, so the Obama administration sued Arizona to stop them from putting this law in place in the same way that currently the Biden administration is trying to stop Texas from enforcing border law.
	The question on the table was whether federal preemption prevented those laws from taking effect.
	So federal preemption is the doctrine that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so when a state law comes into conflict with a federal law, the state law loses.
	So let's say that the federal law says, for example, that it is criminal to commit some sort of crime.
	The state law cannot then exempt that sort of crime from prosecution by the federal government.
	You can't just know the federal law.
	And federal preemption actually is a little bit broader than that.
	It says that if federal law actually takes up a certain portion of the law, if it occupies that portion of the law, the state laws cannot come into conflict with it.
	So the court in the Arizona case found 5-3, that items 1, 2, and 4 were in violation of the Constitution.
	Those would be the state-created laws that enforce the federal Constitution.
	The court did find, for example, that you could get rid of sanctuary status in the state of Arizona.
	That you could force your state law enforcement officials to check immigration status and report it to ICE.
	But the court found that the federal laws on immigration prevented state laws that created crimes based on federal status.
	Which seems like a weird decision.
	Like a really weird decision.
	Because effectively speaking, what you are now saying is that the state cannot call the bluff of the federal government by enforcing laws that are already on the federal books.
	So if the federal government says it is criminal to cross the border and you should be deported, and then the state passes a law that says it is criminal to cross the border using the federal definition and you will be deported, Or criminalized.
	Or he'll go to state prison.
	That that's somehow in conflict with the federal law.
	So Justice Scalia disagreed.
	And this is a dissent that's referred to in the letter from Greg Abbott.
	And here's what he stated in dissent.
	Today's opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit's injunction against
	enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona law, deprived states of what most
	would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty, the power to exclude from
	the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there.
	The naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate states power to exclude those
	they did not want, but to vindicate it.
	So in other words, what he is saying is that originally the reason immigration law was given to the federal government is because everybody at the beginning of the republic was very much afraid of what's happened in the EU.
	Where say, Italy has open immigration policies and you're Hungary, and you say, I don't want all these immigrants coming to my country.
	But the EU says, no, no, no, you must.
	If one of these countries is wide open, then you have to be wide open.
	So the federal government took control of this, so as to make homogenous immigration law around the United States, so there'd be freedom of travel and freedom of residency inside the United States.
	But in order for that bargain to be upheld, the federal government actually does have to police the border.
	And that's particularly true when you have laws on the books saying that the border must be policed.
	It's one thing if the federal government has passed laws saying we have basically open immigration at this time.
	Because, presumably, those federal laws are part of a constitution that was signed onto by the states.
	It's another thing for the federal government to have laws on the books saying you must police the border and remove illegal immigrants.
	And the federal government, the executive branch, just says, no, we're not going to do it.
	Because now you've abrogated the compact.
	I mean, Scalia said in that case in the dissent, he said the reason the entire issue was federalized was to prevent open migration to one state from affecting all the states.
	And that's basically what Greg Abbott is arguing in this letter.
	And he's right.
	Now, that doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is going to vindicate him because after all, the Supreme Court voted the other way in that Arizona case.
	We have no idea what the Supreme Court will do here because the constituency of the Supreme Court has changed since 2010.
	Now that's argument number one, is that basically the federal government has abrogated its constitutional duty and they must be forced to actually enforce the law.
	But then, he makes a kind of unique constitutional argument.
	And this one gets into just, on a legal side, some fascinating and controversial territory.
	Let's put it that way.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, here is a great New Year's resolution you can actually keep.
	Whether you have 3 minutes in the morning or 30 minutes, keep your face wrinkle-free with GenuCell.
	Introducing Gen90, the new instant wrinkle treatment from GenuCell.
	Gen90 instantly reduces the appearance of wrinkles anywhere you use it.
	From around your eyes, forehead, crow's feet, or laugh lines, it starts working in just seconds.
	GenuCell says their Gen90 is two generations better than any immediate effects product and years ahead of the skincare market.
	The technology is luxurious, nourishing, and silk smooth.
	The results?
	They're game changers for you or your money back.
	So what exactly are you waiting for?
	Make your fine lines and wrinkles disappear with GenuCell right now.
	My listeners will get not only 70% off GenuCell's most popular package, but also free shipping.
	Head on over to Genucel.com slash Shapiro.
	Secure your Gen 90 products before they sell out.
	Genucel, they just make good stuff.
	My family's been using Genucel products for almost a decade.
	At this point, you should too.
	Genucel.com slash Shapiro today.
	That's G-E-N-U-C-E-L dot com slash Shapiro to get started today.
	So Abbott actually makes kind of a unique constitutional argument here.
	Here's what he says.
	He says that under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, the state can invoke its constitutional authority to defend its citizens from invasion.
	Now, that could be, as I say, kind of a difficult, controversial legal argument.
	Here's the actual text of Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.
	Quote, So what was that meant to do?
	What does an invasion mean in that context?
	Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in times of peace, enter into
	any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power, or engage in war
	unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
	So what was that meant to do?
	What does an invasion mean in that context?
	Presumably it meant like the British show up in Massachusetts with their gunboats and
	the Massachusetts militia has no time to respond.
	They have to get together and they have to do something.
	Right?
	So because of what that's doing, it's saying the foreign policy of the United States is a federal question.
	It is not a state question.
	Unless it's basically an exigent circumstance.
	Right?
	It's an urgent, dangerous circumstance in which you have like an actual foreign body that is encroaching over the border, for example, and attacking Texas.
	So, for example, the Mexican cartels just decide one day that they're going to walk over the border with AK-47s.
	Can Texas defend itself?
	Of course.
	Texas does not have to call the federal government, at least not until afterward, and they can shoot the Mexican drug cartel members who constitute an invading army.
	Okay, but what actually Abbott is doing is he is claiming that the massive illegal migration wave doesn't constitute an invasion in sort of a colloquial sense, right?
	The way that you and I say invasion, like meaning like a vast wave of people being facilitated in entry.
	He's actually trying to cite the law under the Constitution of invasion in order to apply to illegal migration, which is, again, I think, legally dicey.
	I think the Supreme Court's gonna have a tough time with that argument, for example.
	So, Texas, for example, I think has a pretty good argument that they can just shoot down Mexican cartel drones.
	If the Mexican cartels have drones over the border, for example, that is a military incursion into the United States.
	Texas should not have to call up the chain to shoot down the drones.
	However, can they just start capturing illegal immigrants and treating them as POWs as you would during an invasion, right?
	I mean, if a Mexican army crossed the border and Texas had to defend itself, it would shoot people and take them POWs.
	So, is that really the situation here?
	Very difficult to say that that's the situation here.
	So he's not... Let's be real about this.
	It's not being treated as an invasion.
	If it were being treated as an invasion, then presumably a lot of people are getting shot on the border, which is not exactly what's happening.
	So again, the better argument here that Abbott is making is effectively that the federal government has abrogated its duty to protect the border.
	And they should be forced, by law, to do that.
	And if they won't do it, then we're gonna do it.
	The argument that he gets to invoke invasion power in order to sort of defend the state against invasion, I think that's a little bit more legally dicey.
	But here, again, as I say, this entire thing could be solved tomorrow by Joe Biden enforcing the border.
	That's all.
	And this stuff becomes absolutely inevitable.
	It becomes absolutely inevitable.
	If you do not protect the people of this country because you have made a political decision not to enforce the law, people are going to get mad and they're going to try to find ways to actually enforce the law and protect themselves.
	You can't leave people unprotected.
	What we are seeing on the southern border, writ large, is what you are seeing in the New York subway system, writ small.
	Which is, if you remove the cops from the subway system, and then you have criminals who are attacking people, you are going to have people like Daniel Penny who defend the people in the subway car from crazy people who are attacking them.
	And if you leave the border wide open, you are going to start having state authorities say, guys, if you're going to leave, like, we have to defend our citizens.
	They are our citizens too.
	They're not just federal citizens.
	They're state citizens.
	It's our job to protect them.
	The way this gets solved is by Joe Biden actually enforcing the border.
	Okay, so there are a couple on sort of historic precedence for what happens when you have a state-federal standoff.
	And we're not in that position quite yet.
	Because, again, the state of Texas is not telling, for example, the federal government they can't cut the razor wire.
	Greg Abbott has not prevented the entry of CBP onto state lands to cut the razor wire.
	They're just directing new razor wire, which is totally legal.
	The federal government has not deployed troops to open the southern border, and the state government has deployed the Texas Rangers to shoot at them or something.
	But how do these sorts of standoffs historically get solved?
	Because we've had standoffs, state versus the federal government, much more severe than this in the past.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, do you have a car you're investing in but you don't actually use?
	Well, what you should do instead with it is give it to Cars for Kids.
	You know, Cars for Kids.
	Those are the people with the jingle, right?
	Cars for Kids will pick up your car for free and you can get a tax deduction for the sale price of the car plus a free two-night hotel stay.
	Not to mention, by donating it to a worthy charity, your car will do something good for the world instead of taking up space in your mind and in your driveway.
	Here's how it works.
	Visit their website at cars4kids.org.
	Give them some basic info.
	Let them take it from there.
	The whole process takes like two minutes.
	Cars for Kids will schedule a pickup at a time convenient for you.
	You don't even need to be there for pickup.
	They'll take your car regardless of its condition, whether or not it's running.
	Cars for Kids gets right to work selling your car for the highest price they can, generating more money for kids, and getting you a better tax write-off because the tax deduction is based on the sale price of the car.
	That's a win-win right there.
	Not to mention the vacation voucher for that mini vacation you could really use right about now.
	So what exactly are you waiting for?
	Call or visit cars4kids.org slash ben and get the ball rolling.
	That's cars with a K and the number 4 at cars4kids.org slash ben.
	They'll take good care of you and your car.
	So basically there are two paths.
	One is the federal government just overruns the states.
	Which, historically, has happened a couple of times.
	It happened, obviously, during the Civil War, and then it also happened during the Civil Rights Movement.
	Both to good effect, by the way.
	The Civil War was basically the states arguing that the federal government did not have the power to enforce laws within their states regarding, for example, the Fugitive Slave Act, or revision of the Fugitive Slave Act.
	They were afraid that basically the federal government was going to start freeing slaves in the South.
	They said that violates the state compact.
	It violates the state theory.
	And the federal government said, no, no, no.
	We have the power to do that because you are violating the basic rights of human beings.
	And so we can, we have to preserve the union.
	And that's the fight of the Civil War.
	And the federal government wins that fight, obviously, which is a good thing.
	And then during the Civil Rights Movement, you had the same sort of thing.
	In the aftermath of the passage of Brown versus Board by the Supreme Court,
	you had integration of Southern universities, for example.
	And people forget just how violent and standoffish it got.
	The most famous example is in 1962 at the University of Mississippi,
	which is known also as Ole Miss, that there was a black student named James Meredith,
	who was the first black student who was admitted to Ole Miss.
	And the governor of the state of Mississippi tried to obstruct Meredith from attending.
	And the federal government under JFK actually had to activate first the National Guard, and then they eventually had to activate 31,000 troops.
	31,000 troops to make sure that the campus stayed open.
	The federal government refused to compromise, as they should have, because again, James Meredith had a federal civil right to go to the university.
	Okay, now again, that is the federal government attempting to enforce law, not the federal government attempting to ignore the law.
	So that's a bit of a different thing.
	The only other example that we have that has ended a different way is the so-called nullification crisis of 1828.
	So, in 1828, the federal government passes a tariff.
	It's a tariff that is designed against foreign goods.
	that are manufactured, because the idea was you're gonna protect the infant industries of the North, these new manufacturing firms, and so you're gonna pass a tariff that basically jacks up the cost of foreign goods that are manufactured to make room for manufacturing in the North.
	And the Southern states are like, this is crap.
	We didn't sign on to the Constitution to be barred from importing manufactured goods and then to have foreign countries retaliate against non-manufactured goods from the United States, which were typically Southern products.
	So the tariffs disproportionately hit the South and disproportionately benefited the North.
	So, Vice President John C. Calhoun, who was a vicious racist and would later make very similar arguments with regard to slavery, but here he made an interesting constitutional argument.
	So he argued that the states had what he called the right of nullification.
	What this meant is that if the state decided that the federal law had gone beyond the remit of the Constitution, states could simply say no and refuse to enforce it.
	And not only refuse to enforce it, could resist it.
	Now, that actually was not such an unusual position in 1828.
	That position had been taken, for example, by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a series of missives that became resolutions that are passed by states like Kentucky and Virginia in the late 18th century.
	He wrote regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts, quote, where powers are assumed, which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy, that every state has a natural right in cases not within the compact, casus non foderis, to nullify of their own authority all
	assumptions of power by others within their limits. That without this right, they'd be
	under the dominion absolute and unlimited of what's of whosoever might exercise this right of
	judgment for them. So in other words, if the federal government decided that tomorrow is going to just
	violate the constitutional pact and burst its boundaries, that states could have a right to
	resist that.
	James Madison actually made a similar suggestion at the time.
	He's the father of the Constitution.
	He said, quote, the Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states
	given by each in its sovereign capacity.
	It adds to the stability and dignity as well as to the authority of the Constitution that
	it rests on this solid foundation.
	The states then being parties to the constitutional compact and in their sovereign capacity and
	follows of necessity, there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide in the last
	resort whether the compact made by them be violated.
	And consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
	That's a fancy way of saying that states Should be able to interpret whether the federal constitution is being violated and the federal government is breaking its bonds with the states and states can then resist.
	Now you can see how this exact logic was then used by the South with regard to slavery.
	The South made the argument, a la Dred Scott, that the Constitution did not mandate the end of slavery or give the federal government the power to abolish slavery or to curb slavery, and that therefore, they had the right to resist that.
	Now, Abraham Lincoln made the argument that that was a wild misinterpretation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
	So that was basically the argument.
	Again, this argument has early shades in this terror fight.
	So Calhoun, who's the vice president under Andrew Jackson at this time, he ends up actually resigning the vice presidency in order to become a senator.
	Meanwhile, James Madison, by this point, had actually reversed his position.
	He said that to establish a positive and permanent rule, giving such a power to such a minority over such a majority would overturn the first principle of free government, and in practice, necessarily overturn the government itself.
	So you can see Madison sort of arguing against himself there, right?
	The earlier Madison is saying, well, if the states can't nullify federal law, what stops the federal government from overrunning its boundaries?
	And later Madison is saying, yes, but if a state can nullify federal law, what's the purpose of the federal government?
	So Andrew Jackson, at this point, is the president.
	He's a Southerner.
	He took the same position as Madison, which shocked everybody because he was of the South.
	So people thought he was going to take the Calhoun position.
	At an event honoring his own birthday, Jackson raised a toast to our federal union, saying, quote, It must be preserved.
	It was kind of shocking to everybody at the time.
	And then in December of 1832, he made his position even clearer with a very famous piece of writing
	called the Nullification Proclamation, where he said, quote, I consider then the power to
	annul a law of the United States assumed by one state incompatible with the existence of the Union
	contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution unauthorized by its spirit,
	inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, destructive of the great object
	for which it was formed. Disunion by armed force is treason.
	Okay, now, it is worthwhile to pause here and take stock for a second, because there's a
	contrast between what Jackson is saying about the enforcement of law here versus the border.
	So Jackson was saying that because he was president, he had to enforce what the legislature said, which means the state had to listen to him.
	He was not arguing that he could ignore federal law at the expense of the states.
	That if a federal law was passed and the White House just decided to ignore that federal law, that the states would then have to listen to it.
	In any case, things started to really heat up.
	In 1833, the governor of South Carolina actually began organizing armed resistance, and then Congress passed something called the Force Bill, which allowed the Feds to send armed troops to enforce tariff collections.
	So you actually ended up with an almost pre-Civil War, Civil War almost.
	In the end, what ended up happening is that the Feds and the state both backed down, an agreement was reached, which ended up being a compromise tariff.
	So basically, the states used their power to leverage federal change.
	So those are the two examples of what happens when states and the feds sort of face off.
	One is the feds just overrun the states, and the other is they come to some sort of agreement.
	In this particular case, it is Joe Biden who's refusing to enforce the law.
	He's refusing to enforce the law.
	It is that simple.
	This is a political crisis created by Joe Biden.
	It should not be a legal crisis.
	It should not be a constitutional crisis.
	Enforce the law.
	Enforce the law.
	Protect American citizens.
	These laws are already on the books.
	This sort of stuff is going to become more and more common, more and more inevitable, when the White House refuses to protect its own citizens for political purposes.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, in a world filled with uncertainties, you should be prepared for bad possibilities, which is why you need MyPatriotSupply.
	MyPatriotSupply is your trusted partner for emergency preparedness.
	They're the country's largest preparedness company.
	They're more than equipped to stock your shelves.
	Whether it's a natural disaster or a sudden emergency or unforeseen circumstances, MyPatriotSupply's high-quality food storage solutions ensure you and your loved ones are always well-fed, no matter what comes your way.
	If you want to be prepared for anything, you need to visit preparewithben.com.
	Right now, you'll get $200 off a much-needed 3-month emergency supply from MyPatriotSupply.
	Their three-month emergency food supply provides delicious breakfast, lunches, and dinners that last up to 25 years in storage.
	You can even customize your supply with a mega-protein kit with real meat or gluten-free options.
	Those kits provide over 2,000 calories every day.
	They're simple to prepare.
	Just add some water and heat, and then you eat.
	If you order by 3 p.m., your food kit will ship fast on the same day with free shipping.
	Invest in your safety and well-being by securing your food storage today.
	Go to preparewithben.com and start your three-month emergency supply.
	Again, go to preparewithben.com right now.
	That's preparewithben.com.
	Okay, meanwhile, obviously all of this is going to play into the 2024 election.
	Joe Biden's border policies are a disaster for him.
	They're a top issue for a lot of Americans.
	And it is amazing to me that Joe Biden thinks that Trump is so weak that he can just continue to run on all of these bad policies.
	I mean, he's banking on the economy somehow recovering enough for people not to feel so terrible about it.
	And there's an economic report that just came out in the last couple of hours suggesting that wages are now outpacing inflation, which would be a very good thing for the United States, but it doesn't mean that the inflation that's been baked into the cake over the last several years hasn't had a massive impact on your prices at the grocery store.
	So if your wages are only now starting to outpace inflation, you still lost money over the course of the last several years under Joe Biden.
	But he's hoping the economy is going to recover to a certain extent.
	He's also hoping that all of his foreign policy snafus are going to somehow iron themselves out, which is not going to happen.
	Plus, Joe Biden happens to, again, be not particularly with it.
	He is a very weak candidate.
	Joe Biden yesterday was endorsed by the UAW, which of course is not a great shock because the greatest scam in American life is the combined power of the UAW and Joe Biden.
	Union power and the Democrats are the single I would put it this simple.
	in American politics, they have been for a long time, it's particularly true of public sector unions.
	UAW, of course, is not a public sector union, it's a private sector union,
	but they've helped bankrupt America's car companies multiple times at this point.
	Of course, they're endorsing Joe Biden, who's basically suggested that the labor theory of value
	ought to be mandated by law.
	Here is the head of the UAW endorsing Joe Biden yesterday.
	I would put it this simple.
	The majority of our members voted for President Biden.
	And do you think the endorsement is a big reason for that?
	Without the endorsement, might they have more of them gone to Trump, given the demographics and such?
	I don't think so.
	I mean, I think, you know, even going forward, when you look at both candidates, it's very clear which one supports working class people and which one doesn't.
	By two simple sentences, Joe Biden bet on the American worker, and Donald Trump blamed the American worker.
	How exactly has Joe Biden helped the American worker?
	I mean, Joe Biden has made everything more expensive for the American worker.
	And again, this sort of attempt to suggest that unions are the reason for American prosperity is completely ahistorical.
	The economic data to back that up are extremely scanty.
	In any case, the UAW endorses Biden.
	Biden is basically figuring, if I get the base on board, I can be as bad as I want to be as a president.
	I mean, he's still campaigning on Bidenomics.
	So yesterday he was out there campaigning.
	He said he's fundamentally changing the economy of this country.
	Yeah, we noticed.
	It's not great.
	We're fundamentally changing the economy of this country.
	And everybody's getting a little worried about it.
	Well, I mean, yes, everybody's getting a little worried about it.
	Because it turns out that the greatness of America is that America is the world's first commercial republic.
	And that's why we kick ass.
	I mean, literally visit a foreign country and you realize that America is the country of business for a reason.
	America is awesome.
	Our free market economy is the envy of the world and it should be.
	It is the driver of virtually all global growth.
	Like, this is an amazing place.
	You fundamentally changing it is not a good thing.
	I will say Joe Biden did make a rather large boo-boo the other day.
	He thought he was saying something, I think jokingly, and he actually ends up undercutting many of the arguments he himself has made.
	He says that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy because he's denying elections.
	And then he went to Virginia and suggested that Terry McAuliffe was the real governor of Virginia, which is weird since literally no one believes that Terry McAuliffe didn't lose to Glenn Youngkin.
	Hello, Virginia!
	And the real governor, Terry McAuliffe.
	The real Governor Terry McAuliffe?
	He's not.
	He's not the real Governor.
	He lost.
	So, election denialism.
	It's fine if you're a Democrat.
	Hey, Joe Biden, again, he also has troubles with his base.
	This may be one of the reasons he's so radical on immigration.
	He's trying to buy back the fact that members of his far-left base really kind of like Hamas.
	So, yesterday Joe Biden was speaking and he was protested by the Hamasneks.
	Look, please don't jump.
	Not again.
	Please don't jump.
	I don't know why he always says that.
	It's weird.
	Folks!
	And extreme laws passed by Dobbs have no place in the United States of America.
	And then he was jabbering about abortion.
	But you can hear the protesters there.
	And the Biden administration cannot dissociate itself from these wild left-wing protesters.
	Here is John Kirby, the actual presidential spokesperson, because Corny Jean Pierre is awful at her job, saying that everyone has feelings, which is an exciting piece of news.
	But we're also seeing increased polling among the American public that is clamoring for a ceasefire.
	Is the President, you know, is his perspective on this changing at all, given the daily mounting casualty toll?
	Is he starting to rethink whether it might be prudent to ask for a halt in the fighting, and beyond just the pause?
	I would remind that since a very early We have been urging our Israeli counterparts to be careful and precise.
	We have talked about the civilian casualties and how we don't want to see any more.
	We have urged them to take different actions and they have responded to that advice and counsel.
	There are strong feelings here on all sides, as you would expect.
	Oh, the strong feelings.
	Again, how about this?
	How about dump your wild left-wingers and campaign toward the middle?
	But Joe Biden again refuses to do that, which is one of the reasons why he has a problem on his hands.
	Now, he thinks that problem is solvable by Donald Trump, that if Donald Trump is Donald Trump,
	then Donald Trump will lose the election.
	He's not banking on winning the election anymore.
	He's banking on Donald Trump losing the election.
	What he's really banking on is Donald Trump being extremely polarizing,
	particularly with women and independent voters.
	And there's some evidence for this.
	So New Hampshire, right, where Nikki Haley I mean, she performed strong against an incumbent president, which is effectively how Republicans are treating Donald Trump.
	But she performed strong with independents and Democrats.
	When you look at the New Hampshire primary results, as we observed yesterday, those primary results are largely the effect of independents and Democrats swiveling heavy for Nikki Haley and showing up, and Republicans voting heavily for Donald Trump.
	Well, if that gap emerges in the general election, that's a real problem for Donald Trump, right?
	He needs to win independents and he needs to win Democrats.
	He does need to do that in order to defeat Joe Biden.
	And in order for that to happen, Donald Trump needs to just point at Joe Biden.
	That's all he has to do.
	He and Biden are playing a game of hold my beer.
	It really is amazing.
	All Donald Trump has to do is go like this.
	See that guy?
	He's terrible.
	He's a bad president.
	That's it.
	And meanwhile, Joe Biden actually is a bad president.
	And so he's saying dumb stuff and doing dumb stuff.
	But meanwhile, all Joe Biden thinks he has to do is point at Donald Trump and go, So that's what this election is probably going to be.
	And then the question is, which which candidate is more likely to avoid jumping on the rake?
	So for Biden, what that means is get out there less.
	Look a little bit less senile.
	Look a little bit less crazy.
	Stop being quite so radical.
	Moderate if you're going to run for this election cycle successfully.
	And if you're Donald Trump, what that means is stop acting so crazy.
	Like stop acting so crazy.
	Like if you act crazy, you're going to alienate all of these people with your personality who are attracted by our policies.
	So again, in order for Donald Trump to win the election, all he needs to do is just point at Joe Biden, but he has to stop acting so crazy.
	I understand there are a lot of Republicans who like when Donald Trump acts really aggressive and a little bit crazy because they think, okay, well, that means he's just going to go hog wild on his opponent on the Democratic side of the aisle in the election cycle, or going to go hog wild on the enemies.
	In order for that to work, you have to win.
	In order for that to work, you have to win.
	Again, he will go hog wild on Joe Biden.
	The problem is that if he appears to be unstable in the process, that is not going to help him.
	And I gotta say, the way that he's attacking Nikki Haley right now is not smart.
	It's just not.
	Donald Trump, this primary's over.
	Okay, just statistically speaking, the primary's done.
	Donald Trump is the nominee.
	He won Iowa, he won New Hampshire going away, he's gonna win South Carolina going away.
	This primary is over.
	So what should he do with Nikki Haley?
	He should ignore Nikki Haley.
	You should start focusing in on Joe Biden because everybody knows what this general election is.
	And instead, he's like doing the worst of Donald Trump.
	He's attacking Nikki Haley, not really even based on policy, but just because she has the temerity to stay in the race.
	Now, listen, do I think that it's a waste of time and money for her to stay in the race?
	Kind of.
	I mean, like she has the right to do it.
	Everybody has the right to stay in the race as long as they want.
	Iran could have stayed in, but they could have stayed in.
	Nikki could stay.
	Like, that's fine.
	Trump's the nominee.
	Hey, but this this sort of wild attack on Haley as though this is something productive and useful is bizarre to me.
	He's not even attacking her on policy because again, realistically speaking, I mean, here's the I have a dirty little secret for you folks.
	Here's the dirty little secret.
	Donald Trump on policy and Nikki Haley on policy are super similar.
	I know everybody's like, oh, no, but she's a neocon and he and he's he's an anti-war.
	She was his UN ambassador.
	He was hawkish on foreign policy when he was the president of the United States.
	For people like, oh my god, well, she's so soft on Democrats when it comes to domestic policy.
	Donald Trump is softer than she is when it comes to abortion and spending.
	Like on policy, there's a solid case to be made that Donald Trump is to her left.
	Now, that doesn't mean that in terms of affect and in terms of militance, that Donald Trump is to her left.
	He's not, right?
	He's much more militant in his affect.
	But again, Donald Trump isn't making policy attacks on Nikki Haley.
	He's basically making Hannibal Lecter, let me rip off her face attacks on Nikki Haley.
	And the problem with that is not about Nikki Haley.
	The problem with that is if you wish to win independent voters and suburban moms, you know what you don't want to look like?
	A person who randomly rips people's faces off at the supermarket.
	That's not really the look that you're going for.
	Again, Donald Trump needs to go run Joe Biden's basement campaign from 2020 and he'll be president again.
	Okay, the reason I bring this up is because the last 48 hours have been all media coverage of Donald Trump's treatment of Nikki Haley.
	This is exactly why Joe... In fact, there are members of Joe Biden's campaign who have said, this is the guy we want to run against.
	Not Trump generally.
	The guy who appeared at the press conference after defeating Nikki Haley in the New Hampshire primaries.
	So, just to take a couple of examples.
	After the New Hampshire primary, Donald Trump stands up and behind him is Tim Scott.
	Tim Scott has endorsed him.
	Now the reason Tim Scott endorsed him is because Donald Trump's gonna be the nominee!
	And Tim Scott is thinking, OK, maybe I'll be VP or maybe I'll get a cabinet pick or whatever.
	I mean, a lot of people have endorsed Donald Trump at this point.
	And even if you haven't endorsed him, even if you don't endorse people, generally speaking, he's going to be a nominee.
	So what does Donald Trump do?
	He immediately not only attacks Nikki Haley, he just takes he takes Tim Scott's face and just mashes it into pie.
	Like, there's a pie on the table and he takes Tim Scott and he goes wham!
	And just smacks his face directly into the pie.
	Because he can't resist.
	The thing... Donald Trump, when it comes to his opponents, is Joffrey.
	He's King Joffrey from Game of Thrones.
	He always has been.
	If you bend the knee to Trump, you might have to because you have no other choice, but he will chop off your head.
	Right?
	He will reduce you to Chris Christie going, go... Christie, go get on the plane, Chris.
	Get on the plane.
	Like, that's who you become.
	And that's why these sorts of, they're not good for Trump.
	Forget about what I think of them on a moral level.
	And by the way, I don't think it's great to humiliate people politically for no reason, especially when they've endorsed you.
	I just don't think, I don't understand the morality or the politics of it.
	But, on a political level, is this the, like, just take yourself out of yourself for a second.
	You know, listen, I understand a lot of my audience loves Trump and will vote for Trump.
	I'm gonna vote for Trump against Joe Biden, right?
	I agree with you.
	Also, If you take, just analyze the state of American politics right now.
	You're a suburban mom living in Michigan, in a swing state.
	And you have Joe Biden, who's very bad on policy.
	But you don't follow policy all that closely because, let's be real, you're busy, you don't have a lot of time.
	What you mostly see is an old man doddering around and walking into walls like the Shane Gillis Roomba.
	And then you see Donald Trump.
	And Donald Trump is on your TV, just ripping people's faces off.
	And you're like, okay, if I have a choice between senile and wild, maybe I'll choose, again, that's not the choice you should make.
	Because the case that I've made for Trump is that basically politics is like a coffee filter.
	And the grounds, the stuff, whatever.
	So you have the coffee filter, right?
	Got the coffee in there.
	And then you got the liquid that you're gonna pour in.
	The case that I've made is that the liquid that you're pouring in with Joe Biden is not only a toxic liquid, The toxicity of the liquid is small enough to escape the filter that what comes out from the bottom of the filter is a bunch of actual toxic sludge.
	And it's really bad and dangerous.
	The case that I made for Donald Trump is that Donald Trump, yeah, he's got the liquid is basically not even a pure mix.
	The liquid that he's pouring into the coffee machine is basically like water and rocks.
	And the rocks are bad, and you don't want them in your coffee.
	Good news.
	They're also getting filtered out by the checks and balances of American government and by the other people in his administration, which is why the stuff that actually comes out the other end of the coffee filter is decent coffee, despite the rocks.
	Okay, but if you are a person who's just casually watching politics, and that's a little complex, then does this help or hurt?
	Very simple binary.
	Does it help or does it hurt?
	Here is Donald Trump abjectly humiliating Tim Scott for no reason other than he just enjoys doing it.
	Two great senators, which is hard.
	I mean, did you ever think that she actually appointed you, Tim?
	Think of it.
	Appointed, and you're the senator of his state, and she endorsed me.
	You must really hate her.
	No.
	It's a shame.
	It's a shame.
	Uh-oh.
	I just love you!
	That's why he's a great politician.
	Why?
	What's the purpose of that?
	Why don't you say, I'm so thankful to Tim Scott for endorsing me, even over the person who actually picked him for the Senate.
	That's how much he really thinks that I'll be a great president.
	Same point, without humiliating the person who is now actually a surrogate for your campaign.
	And then he was ripping on Nikki Haley's dress and all that.
	Who are you trying to win?
	Are you trying to win an election?
	Or is it just trollery?
	Again, I can appreciate the humor of it.
	It's trolling, it's funny.
	Is it going to help you win a general election?
	Every question from here to the election should be based on, it's just this question.
	Will this help you or not help you win a general election against Joe Biden?
	Here he was attacking Nikki Haley's rest.
	I felt I should do this because I find in life you can't let people get away with bulls**t, okay?
	You can't.
	You just can't do that.
	And when I watched her in the fancy dress, that probably wasn't so fancy, come up, I said, what's she doing?
	We won.
	And she did the same thing last week, but he was much more angry about it than I was.
	I said, get up there and you let him know.
	Really?
	Like, seriously?
	Okay.
	Like, we're attacking clothing now?
	Sure.
	David Axelrod, again, who wants the Democrats to win.
	He's like, yeah, this is not a great exhibition.
	And again, he loves this.
	I mean, this is like David Axelrod's favorite thing.
	He wants Democrats to be able to run against this.
	That's Joe Biden's entire bet.
	His entire bet is not even that Trump is a fascist.
	And he knows that that dog is not going to hunt super well.
	But the Trump's a wild man thing.
	Basically, the more people have to overlook in order to vote for Trump, the harder it's going to be for him to win.
	Winning elections is about two things.
	Making it hard to vote for your opponent, making it easy to vote for you.
	And as I've said for literally a decade now about Donald Trump, Donald Trump makes it very hard to vote for his opponent because he's great at attacking his opponents.
	And he also makes it hard to vote for him because the barrier to entry is saying this kind of stuff.
	Here's David Axelrod going after him.
	And I guarantee you that they did not say, go on out there and act like a jackass and go after Nikki Haley in really personal, sexist ways and humiliate Tim Scott.
	That was the improvisational Trump.
	The challenge for his campaign team is they can do all the blocking and tackling well, and they are, but they can't control him.
	That was a really...
	Axelrod is not wrong, okay?
	He's not wrong when he says that Trump is basically making it harder for people to vote for him who are in the middle.
	Remember, not everyone is like you.
	If you listen to a political show, understand.
	If you listen to a show like this one, that's a news politics show, understand that you represent, in the United States, Two to three percent of the population.
	Like if you listen to a daily political show in any way, shape, or form, the number of Americans who engage with politics daily in a granular way is really low.
	Most people have not even engaged with this race yet.
	Most people are going to engage with this race in the last month of the election.
	And what they're going to take away is a gestalt of a candidate.
	They're going to take away like, what do I kind of think?
	What do I kind of think?
	And they're going to walk into a ballot place and they're going to cast a ballot.
	And their vote counts just as much as yours.
	Donald Trump needs to make it easier to vote for him.
	That's all I'm saying here.
	That would be the smart way to pursue this campaign.
	Alrighty, guys.
	The rest of the show is continuing right now.
	You don't want to miss it.
	We'll be joined by Abe Hamadeh, candidate for Arizona's 8th congressional district.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro.
	Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

▲