Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 19, 2024 - The Ben Shapiro Show

58:26

Bankrupting Donald Trump

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Folks, we begin today's show with a thank you to Congressman Greg Murphy.
	Greg Murphy is the only acting physician in the United States Congress.
	Right now, following our reporting here at Daily Wire, we talked about it on this show, about rampant DEI in medical schools, Congressman Murphy is now introducing legislation to end federal funding, including student loan funding, for any medical school that practices DEI.
	The bill is called the Educate Act, and it would ban the anti-white admission standards that, for example, Duke has been using to hire surgeons, which we talked about last month.
	Any attempt to push against meritocracy at medical schools in favor of quote-unquote racial diversity would make you ineligible to receive federal funding under the bill.
	Specifically, the bill prevents medical schools from taking quote any action that would deprive a medical student of educational opportunities or otherwise adversely affect their status on the basis of race.
	It would also prohibit medical schools from teaching that America is systematically racist and that some racial groups are oppressors.
	This would obviously apply to some of the reporting that we've already done about medical schools like UCLA, where there are mandatory courses talking about colonization of the United States.
	And such would also shut down DEI offices like the one at Wake Forest Medical School.
	So, all of this is Really good and really necessary.
	Again, there are many areas of American life where the meritocracy is necessary.
	It's hard to think of one where it is more necessary than when it comes to your medical care, your surgical care.
	And the fact that Congressman Murphy is bringing forward that bill is excellent, and so we say thank you to him.
	Okay, now, the big news of the day is that President Trump is on the hook for a $454 million judgment.
	According to the courts in New York, the court in New York which was presided over by Judge Arthur Engron was a stacked court.
	The civil fraud prosecution that was brought against Donald Trump, and it was done so specifically in civil court as opposed to criminal court because the burden of proof is lower in civil court.
	This is the case where Attorney General Letitia James, who had come into office pledging to get Trump, which, by the way, is not an actual thing that prosecutors should do.
	You don't come into office saying you're going to get that guy.
	What you do is you say you're going to prosecute a crime.
	Typically, you don't find the criminal.
	You find the crime.
	And the person who does the crime is, by definition, the criminal.
	If you are targeting a specific person, And that looks very much like malicious and selective prosecution, which is exactly, of course, what Letitia James was doing right here.
	So she prosecuted him in this New York court for the great crime of supposedly inflating the value of his real estate assets and obtaining loans from the banks.
	There was no allegation that the banks that gave the loans were actually damaged.
	In fact, they all got their money back.
	The allegation instead is that by inflating the price of the real estate, Inflating his assets.
	And somehow he had perpetrated a fraud against the people of New York, despite there being zero damages.
	So it's a case with zero damages.
	And then a judgment was brought down of nearly half a billion dollars, which is totally insane.
	I mean, of all the cases that have been brought against President Trump, this one is by far the most insane.
	The judgment is completely off-kilter.
	The insanity of using a statute like this in order to bankrupt someone for no damages is totally crazy.
	So, in order for Donald Trump to appeal that judgment, which, of course, he has to do, he had to post a bond.
	The bond that he had to post was $454 million.
	He had to secure a bond to cover all of that.
	Now, Donald Trump is a very, very wealthy person, obviously.
	But, as I've mentioned many times on the show, when it comes to wealth, not all wealth is liquid.
	People who have a lot of money don't have a bank account with a lot of money in it.
	What they do is they have, say, real estate holdings or stock holdings.
	Those are semi-liquid assets, meaning that you could sell them, you could offload them, you could sell stock, you could borrow against them, theoretically.
	But Donald Trump does not have like $500 million sitting around on hand in a bank vault like Scrooge McDuck.
	And then every night he just goes home and he dumps it into the vault and swims around or something stupid like that.
	That's not how this works.
	So Donald Trump couldn't secure the bond.
	And so what that now means is that if he cannot secure the bond, in order to appeal, they would have to put liens on his properties.
	They would have to basically shut down the business workings of all of his properties, including properties that are not apparently located in New York.
	Letitia James, by the way, says that if Donald Trump does not pay up, then the New York AG is in fact prepared to seize Donald Trump's assets.
	If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets.
	Okay, so basically, if he's not going to appeal, if he can't appeal because he can't get the bond and you need the bond in order to appeal, if he can't do that, they will move forward with trying to seize his assets, including assets like Trump Tower in New York.
	According to Yahoo Finance, the former president must either pay the sum out of his own pocket or post a bond to stave off the state's seizure while he appeals Justice Arthur Engron's February 16th judgment against him for misstating property values to dupe lenders and insurers.
	Apparently, Trump and two of his adult children and other Trump Organization executives had so far approached the 30 companies through four separate brokers without success.
	According to his lawyers, the other defendants faced judgments totaling about $10 million.
	A bonding company would be on the hook for any payout if Trump loses the appeal and proves unable to pay.
	And that's the reason why people are not putting up the money.
	There's two reasons.
	One, they are afraid that on appeal, the appeal will get rejected and Trump will have to pay up.
	And when Trump pays up, it wouldn't be Trump paying up.
	It would be whoever puts up the money.
	That money would then be seized and used as the payment for the actual judgment.
	And then they would have to turn around and go back to Trump and try to chisel the money out of Trump.
	So the fact is that on a personal level, there are a lot of people who have accused Donald Trump in the past of not paying his bills properly.
	And so they're having a difficult time securing some sort of bond.
	Collateralized against Donald Trump's assets.
	Maybe Trump isn't willing to give that, or maybe the assets are not free.
	Whatever it is, Donald Trump is having a very difficult time posting bond here.
	We'll get to more on this in a moment.
	First, $20?
	Eh, barely gets you anything these days.
	You can't get a burger and fries for less than that.
	What about at the gas pump?
	You get maybe a quarter tank of gas.
	Do you know what $20 will get you, however?
	Well, from the cell phone company I use, PureTalk can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
	PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost.
	The average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
	You can switch to PeerTalk and keep the phone and phone number you currently use, or you can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Androids.
	Making the switch?
	Incredibly easy.
	Their U.S.
	customer service team can help you join PeerTalk in as little as 10 minutes.
	Choose to spend your hard-earned money with a wireless company that shares your values, That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro.
	veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on, you know, the fake news networks.
	Stop spending ridiculous amounts of money on your phone plan.
	Go to PeerTalk.com slash Shapiro.
	Right now, my listeners can get an additional 50% off their very first month of coverage.
	That's PeerTalk.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, go check them out today at PeerTalk.com slash Shapiro.
	And again, he has to post cash or a bond within 30 days of Engron's formal entry of the order
	on February 23rd.
	So we are coming up very, very close to that.
	Or he has to risk the state seizing some of the Trump Organization's assets to ensure that Letitia James can collect again those 30 days and March 25th.
	So in just six days, we are going to be faced with either Donald Trump has to come up with a bond, In order to appeal, or Letitia James is going to start seizing his assets.
	In a court filing on Monday, Trump's lawyers urged a mid-level state appeals court to delay enforcement of the judgment, arguing the amount was excessive.
	Unclear at this point when that court, known as the appellate division, will actually rule.
	So a delay in that could create a conflict.
	It could be that Letitia James is putting liens on his properties, and the appellate division has not put a stay on her doing that.
	And so you end up with this weird conflict where she has liens on his assets, even as he is attempting to appeal the amount of the judgment.
	I find it hard to believe that there will be any circumstance in which this judgment is not knocked down extraordinarily.
	That 95% of this judgment doesn't just disappear.
	It's an insane proposition that if you are negotiating with a bank and you take an opening negotiation position of my real estate assets are worth X and then they go and they survey the real estate assets.
	And they determine what they think it's worth.
	And then you negotiate over it.
	And then you come up with a loan.
	And they're not damaged and they get their money back.
	But somehow you owe half a billion dollars to the state of New York.
	This is purely an attempt by Letitia James to bankrupt Trump.
	That is all this is.
	It's an attempt to bankrupt Donald Trump so as to forestall his ability to, for example, pay his legal bills in other legal cases.
	Of all the cases that have been brought against Trump, this is the one that is most obviously malicious prosecution.
	It is deeply malicious.
	The judge in this case is a political actor, Arthur Engron.
	He's a clown.
	He made a clown out of himself in the courtroom.
	Letitia James is a clown.
	But again, this is the danger of being able to forum shop.
	If you can try Donald Trump in New York with a New York jury, You can get away with pretty much anything.
	In front of a New York judge, you can get away with pretty much anything.
	And that is not equal application of the law.
	It's incredibly, incredibly dangerous.
	It is, by the way, one of the reasons why you are seeing capital flight from places like New York, because a lot of people are looking around and going, hold up, if they don't like me, they're just gonna seize my assets.
	And that is what it looks like in the state of New York right now.
	Donald Trump's lawyers are asking that Trump be allowed to post a $100 million bond while he appeals the judgment, which again, that's a lot of money, $100 million in bond.
	Gary Giulietti, an executive with insurance brokerage with the Lockton companies hired by Trump to help get the bond, wrote in a court filing, a bond for the full $464 million is not possible under the circumstances presented.
	Giulietti said many sureties would not issue bonds above $100 million and were willing to accept only cash or securities, not real estate as a collateral.
	So therein lies the problem.
	Donald Trump, you could theoretically get a collateral, right?
	I give a loan to Donald Trump, collateralized against his real estate, but there are a lot of bonding companies that won't do that.
	They will only do that based on more liquid assets like stocks because When you go to sell real estate, it's not a perfectly liquid market.
	Liquid just means that it's very easy to buy and sell in that market.
	As people who have ever tried to sell a house know, it may take a while.
	There may be multiple offers.
	It may be that you don't get the price that you are actually seeking.
	It's a time-consuming issue.
	Particularly when you know that Trump is going to be forced into the corner and forced to sell at fire sale prices if he actually has to sell his assets in order to pay this sort of judgment.
	Really, really ugly stuff, obviously.
	Deeply corrupt.
	Trump campaign spokesperson Stephen Chung told the Daily Express US,
	this is a motion to stay the unjust unconstitutional un-American judgment
	from New York Judge Arthur Engron in a political witch hunt brought by a corrupt attorney general.
	A bond of this size would be an abuse of the law, contradict bedrock principles of
	our republic and fundamentally undermine the rule of law in New York.
	Again, that is not wrong.
	And again, if Trump fails to pay up, the state could, in fact, levy and sell his assets, lean his real property, and garnish anyone who owes him money, according to a Syracuse law professor named Gregory Germain.
	So this is truly nasty and ugly stuff, and I'm very hopeful that an appellate court in New York will stay this, because this is insane.
	It is, in fact, Trump is not wrong when he says, listen, I didn't have a judgment against me in New York, anything remotely like this, being the biggest real estate mogul in New York, most famous real estate mogul in New York for literally half a century, nothing like this.
	He runs for president, he wins the presidency, He loses the presidency, and then all of a sudden, magically, there are these judgments against him for half a billion dollars.
	Totally insane.
	Well, again, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops against President Trump, up to and including every hoax that they can find.
	So, for example, the Biden campaign, as well as the media, continue, as we discussed yesterday, to claim that Donald Trump is pledging a bloodbath should he Should he lose the upcoming election?
	That is not what he said.
	What he said, of course, is that if Joe Biden won the upcoming election, there would be an economic bloodbath.
	That didn't stop Al Sharpton, a person who has been involved in some inflammatory language of his own that also involved riots.
	from actually ripping into Trump, saying Trump might prompt violence.
	Again, Al Sharpton standing there and saying this with a straight face is truly astonishing, given the Crown Heights riots of 1991 and the burning down of Freddy's Fashion Mart that same decade, both of which he used some rather inflammatory language regarding Jews.
	Here was Al Sharpton.
	Much of this bigoted and threatening language and behavior is being encouraged by former President Trump, who once again at a rally just last night reminded us of his passion for pushing the boundaries of civility.
	Last month, the FBI warned election officials throughout the country the threat of political violence is real and urged them to take steps to ensure their safety.
	I pray every day this election will come and go without incident.
	But if a tragedy should occur, we should all remember who was stoking the flames of hatred and anger, as well as we should remember those who refused to speak out against them.
	Democrats are such hypocrites on this sort of stuff.
	I mean, truly hypocrites, because they are perfectly fine with political violence so long as it comes from their side.
	I oppose political violence on all sides.
	Democrats only oppose political violence so long as it is supporters of Donald Trump who are supposedly perpetuating it.
	Democrats were totally fine with $2 billion in property damage in 2020.
	In fact, they were cheering on the fiery but mostly peaceful riots of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020.
	And again, Al Sharpton, as your spokesperson against violence, is pretty astonishing.
	We'll get to more on this in a moment.
	First, my days are really, really full between the show, being a dad, helping run my company.
	I can't keep up with my day if I don't get a good night's sleep, which is why I'm so appreciative of my Helix mattress.
	Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
	The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored Four specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
	If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you really don't have to be.
	Helix has a sleep quiz.
	It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress, because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
	I took that Helix quiz.
	I was matched with a firm but breathable mattress, which I love because that's what I need.
	My wife loves the mattress as well.
	We are big Helix fans at the Shapiro house.
	Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty.
	You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you're gonna love it.
	Helix's financing options and flexible payment plans make it so a great night's sleep is never far away.
	Right now, Helix is offering all my listeners 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
	Go to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	That's helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	It's their best offer yet.
	It's not going to last long with Helix.
	Better sleep starts right now.
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden actually cut a campaign ad based on the bloodbath hoax.
	Here's the campaign ad from yesterday.
	Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath and it's going to be a bloodbath for the country.
	Jews will not replace us!
	But you also had people You're very fine people on both sides.
	Are you willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups?
	Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.
	Please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages.
	There'll be a lot of pardons and commutations of January 6th defendants.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Tell your supporters now, no matter what, no violence.
	And it's gonna be a bloodbath.
	Okay, the bloodbath, like, that's so insane.
	The bloodbath line is an economic bloodbath description.
	They're literally taking it out of context, and then they're hooking it up with a bunch of other statements that he has made about January 6th, many of which are also out of context, to create a narrative that Donald Trump is gonna foment an actual civil war in the country if he wins.
	Now, let's be real.
	We all know what's actually going to happen if Donald Trump wins.
	There will be major riots in America's major cities if Donald Trump wins.
	We all know this.
	We know it.
	In fact, there was violence in 2017 when Donald Trump took office.
	That is a real thing that happened, and it got ignored by the press, because the press really don't care about violence so long as it's left-wing violence.
	But these sorts of silly hoaxes, like the bloodbath hoax, these sorts of silly hoaxes are now becoming Democratic stock and trade.
	So the latest one comes courtesy of the White House.
	So yesterday, Donald Trump did an interview with Seb Gorka, And during that interview, he was talking about Jews voting Democrat, and he was making a point that, frankly, I have made myself, which is that Jews who are voting Democrat do not understand the Democratic Party at this point.
	They do not understand that the Democratic Party is a wildly anti-Israel party, that it is split at best between moderates on Israel and radicals who hate Israel.
	Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib.
	These are people who are honored in the halls of Congress.
	Alexander Ocasio-Cortez.
	It is Democrats, Democrat senators right now who are attempting to withdraw military aid as Israel tries to finish off a terrorist group that killed 1,200 Israelis on October 7th and took 250 hostage and currently holds at least 50 more hostages right now.
	That is the Biden administration that's doing that.
	The Biden administration, they unleashed Chuck Schumer to try to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel right now.
	He literally called for new elections and said that Bibi Netanyahu is the problem in a conflict between a democratically elected ally of the United States and an actual, honest to God, America-hating terrorist group.
	That was Chuck Schumer who was doing that.
	It is Joe Biden who right now is putting significant pressure on Netanyahu.
	Okay, but Donald Trump mentions this and he says, you know, Jews should not vote Democrat based on this.
	If you're a Jew and you're voting Democrat, it's because either you don't understand what's going on or you don't care about what's going on.
	He happens to be correct about that.
	He happens to be correct about that.
	Donald Trump is the single most pro-Israel president of my lifetime, bar none.
	There is no comparison.
	Joe Biden has been shockingly derelict in his inability to explain a basic moral difference between a democratic state that is an American ally, and that actually is in America's interests, and a terrorist group that our American ally is attempting to destroy right now.
	Here is Trump yesterday.
	According to the White House, they claim this is anti-Semitic.
	You know what's anti-Semitic?
	The fact that your party literally will not dissociate from Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
	You know what's anti-Semitic?
	Your party's bizarre suggestion that there's a moral equivalent between Israel and Hamas terrorists.
	It's absurd.
	And you know what's truly endangering for Jews?
	You're trying to cut off arms shipments to a Democratic ally of the United States in the middle of a war against a genocidal terror group.
	Anyway, here's Donald Trump yesterday.
	When you see those Palestinian marches, even I, I'm amazed at how many people are in those marches.
	And guys like Schumer see that, And to him it's votes.
	I think it's votes more than anything else.
	Because he was always pro-Israel.
	He's very anti-Israel now.
	Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion, they hate everything about Israel, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
	Okay, so, people are saying, well, it's anti-Semitic to say that Jews who are voting for Democrats hate their religion.
	Well, here is the reality.
	That's very strong language.
	I would suggest that many Jews who are voting for Democrats literally don't know about what Joe Biden is doing right now.
	But if you are a Jew in the United States and you are willing to overlook what the Democratic Party is doing right now and the direction the Democratic Party is moving on Israel, I would suggest at the very best you are rather disconnected from your religion because it turns out that the religious dream of a Jewish state in Israel, which Jews who are religious pray for multiple times a day, There's a reason that Jews pray toward the East and pray toward Jerusalem.
	There's a reason for that.
	That if, in fact, you're voting for a party that disdains Israel and that overlooks antisemitism within its own party because, for example, you just like abortion policy coming from the Biden administration, I can't say that I have a lot of respect for your religious convictions, at least Judaically.
	Now, again, you can say that your version of Judaism is not a more traditional form of Judaism.
	You can make a case.
	That your religious practice has nothing to do with Israel?
	You can do that, but it has nothing to do with Judaism.
	Let's just be clear about that.
	Judaism is a set of precepts and principles, and yes, they have to do with Israel.
	Pretending that they do not is absurd.
	Of course Jews have something to do with Israel.
	Of course they do.
	So calling that anti-Semitic is really a stretch.
	Democrats trying to swivel Donald Trump, who is a full-scale supporter of Israel, into an anti-Semite for being too pro-Israel, which is effectively what they are doing right there, is an absurdity.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, we all know the first thing we do when we get home from work, we change out of the work clothes and we get into some loungewear.
	Well, luckily for me, I have Tommy John to come home to.
	When I put on my Tommy John loungewear set, I immediately noticed the supreme softness and unparalleled comfort.
	Not only is their loungewear cozy enough to use as sleepwear, it's also stylish enough to walk with the dog, to the park with the kids.
	You won't look like you just rolled out of bed, even if you maybe did.
	And guys, if you're wondering how they can get any better, let me tell you, their underwear, it is the best.
	I've been talking about the Tommy John underwear for literally years.
	I took all my other underwear, I threw them out, I only have Tommy John.
	Tommy John's stylish and soft second skin underwear has dozens of comfort innovations, like a supportive contour pouch, a breathable, lightweight, moisture-wicking fabric with four times the stretch of competing brands.
	Plus, Tommy John's best pair you'll ever wear or it's free guarantee means it's the best pair you'll ever wear or it's free.
	So what are you waiting for?
	Try Tommy John today.
	For silky soft comfort with sophisticated style, check out Tommy John's luxurious second skin limited edition colors right now at TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	And they're going fast, so hurry on over to TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	The White House said President Biden has put his foot down when it comes to violent, unhinged, anti-Semitic rhetoric.
	Has he, though?
	Has he really?
	Because it seems to me every time there's been violent, unhinged, anti-Semitic rhetoric, he's said nothing when it comes from his own Congress.
	It seems to me that Joe Biden, every time he talks about anti-Semitism, finds the desperate need to pair it with Islamophobia, phantom Islamophobia, that Joe Biden literally invited the Council on American Islamic Relations, which is, in fact, highly connected with Islamist radicals, To help join him in defining antisemitism.
	The White House did this.
	So yeah, no, I don't think that's true.
	The White House said, as anti-Semitic crimes and acts of hate have increased around the world,
	among them the deadliest attack committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust,
	leaders have an obligation to call hate what it is and bring Americans together against it.
	There is no justification for spreading toxic, false stereotypes that threaten fellow citizens.
	Like President Biden said, he was moved to run for president when he saw neo-Nazis chanting
	the same anti-Semitic bile that was heard in Germany in the 1930s in Charlottesville.
	Weird he has had nothing to say about hundreds of thousands of pro-Hamas American citizens chanting anti-Semitic bio that's not just reminiscent of the 1930s, it is identical to the stuff being chanted during the 1930s.
	That dude is trying to win those votes in Michigan.
	He's trying to win the votes of people who love Hamas in Dearborn, Michigan.
	That is what Joe Biden is trying to do right now.
	And he has the gall to suggest that Donald Trump is an anti-Semite?
	Truly?
	That's the direction that he is going?
	He's literally doing this, by the way, at the same time that he is putting significant pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu not to finish off genocidal anti-Semites in Rafah.
	Israel has successfully pushed Hamas away from Gaza City, away from Khan Yunis, and the final city, they have apparently four battalions of Hamas terrorists in there, is Rafah.
	The only way that those terrorists will be eliminated is with a military incursion into Rafah.
	Everyone knows this.
	And yet the Biden administration is trying to pressure Israel into not doing that.
	Why?
	Because Joe Biden desperately wants to win those votes in Dearborn, Michigan.
	He thinks he's going to lose the election if he loses Michigan, and for some odd reason, he thinks he's losing Michigan because not enough Arab Americans are going to vote for him.
	Which, by the way, is not the reason he's losing Michigan.
	The reason he's losing Michigan is because blue-collar workers don't like Joe Biden.
	Because Joe Biden is the representative of an upper-crust, white, liberal establishment.
	And it turns out blue-collar workers don't like that very much.
	According to the Times of Israel, U.S.
	National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan acknowledged that the effort to secure an extended truce between Israel and Hamas through a hostage deal has been more elusive than we would have hoped, but insists the Biden administration will keep pressing because we regard this as an urgent priority.
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden called Netanyahu yesterday, and Biden offered his strongest warnings against an Israeli assault in Rafah.
	The prospect of fighting in Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, was the main focus of the conversation.
	National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan briefed reporters at the White House after the call.
	He actually requested that Israel pre-clear its military operations with the United States, basically, before going into Rafah.
	Sullivan said, That Biden said, quote, I want you to understand, Mr. Prime Minister, exactly where I am on.
	I am on this.
	I am for the defeat of Hamas.
	I believe they are an evil terrorist group with not just Israeli but American blood on their hands.
	At the same time, I believe that to get to that, you need a strategy that works.
	That strategy should not involve a major military operation, puts thousands and thousands of innocent civilian lives at risk in Rafa.
	There is a better way.
	Yes, brilliant, noted military strategist Joe Biden is going to explain to the IDF One of the single most effective fighting forces on planet Earth.
	Exactly how they should do a military operation.
	Joe Biden, who literally could not abandon Afghanistan without getting tens of thousands of Afghan allies murdered and 13 American troops murdered.
	That dude is going to have a military recommendation to the Israelis on how to finish things off in Rafah.
	That senile old dotard is going to be lecturing, by the way, not just lecturing the Israelis, apparently putting enough pressure on the Israelis that he is, according to the New York Sun, threatening to withhold offensive military aid to Israel to actually do that.
	According to Benny Avni, writing for the New York Sun, by Sunday, Israel must tell America it is complying with international restrictions on arms supplies, including by facilitating ample humanitarian assistance to Gaza, according to the National Security Advisor.
	This is totally wild.
	So Jake Sullivan was asked about the fact that this is all based on Joe Biden's sinking poll numbers, because it is.
	And here he was denying that, even though it's obviously true.
	When President Biden was told his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas was starting to affect his poll numbers, the quote is, he began to shout and swear.
	So when he does that, is he shouting and swearing about Netanyahu or about Hamas or about his poll numbers?
	This is the when did you stop beating your spouse question because I don't think he ever did that.
	And so, well, you use that as the premise of your question, which is when he does that, I've never seen him do that, shout or swear in response to that.
	So from my perspective, that particular report is not correct.
	Okay, so he says he's never shouted and he's never sworn.
	But, obviously, that's not true.
	We'll get to more on this in just one second.
	First, do you owe back taxes or still have unfiled returns?
	Well, not only is owing back taxes stressful, the IRS has become more determined than ever to come after you.
	The IRS's Chief Data and Analytics Officer revealed they are focused on an enforcement project with an average return on investment of about $6 for every $1 spent.
	They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't filed their returns first.
	Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code.
	They'll fight for you.
	With a record of negotiating over $1 billion in tax relief for their clients, their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue.
	Whether you owe 10 grand or 10 million dollars, they can help.
	Even if you don't have all your personal or business records from over the years, they can get you filed up to date.
	Facing the IRS without a professional, not smart, contact Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate that tax debt.
	Call today at 1-800-245-6000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash Shapiro.
	They'll give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt today.
	That's TNUSA.com slash Shapiro.
	Again, TNUSA.com slash Shapiro.
	Then, Sullivan outlined the reasons that the United States opposes an offensive in Rafa.
	This is wild stuff here.
	The President explained why he is so deeply concerned about the prospect of Israel conducting major military operations in Rafah of the kind it conducted in Gaza City and Khan Yunis.
	First, more than a million people have taken refuge in Rafah.
	They went from Gaza City to Khan Yunus and then to Rafa.
	They have nowhere else to go.
	Gaza's other major cities have largely been destroyed.
	And Israel has not presented us or the world with a plan for how or where they would safely move those civilians,
	let alone feed and house them and ensure access to basic things like sanitation.
	Second, Rafa is a primary entry point for humanitarian assistance into Gaza from Egypt and from
	Israel.
	An invasion would shut that down, or at least put it at grave risk, right at the moment when it is most sorely needed.
	Third, Rafa is on the border with Egypt, which has voiced its deep alarm over a major military operation there, and has even raised questions about its future relationship with Israel as a result of any impending military operation.
	Okay, this is asinine.
	All three reasons that he listed are asinine.
	First, he says there are lots of people in Rafah, and those people are going to have to be moved, and they haven't presented us a plan with how to move those people.
	Presumably, they will move those people, and in fact, they have in fact discussed with the Americans plans to move those people to safe enclaves, because they've been doing that the whole time.
	Israel doesn't want to be wading through civilians in order to get to the military members of Hamas.
	They don't want to be doing that.
	That's not something Israel has a military interest in doing.
	They would like to clear the area.
	So they say first, well, we're gonna need to move the civilians.
	Then, they make the counter-argument.
	You can't move the civilians.
	Because if you move the civilians, then, RAFA's an entry point for humanitarian assistance.
	Well, yes, RAFA's a humanitarian point for assistance, because that's literally where the people are.
	So when you move the people, then you're gonna move the humanitarian assistance.
	It's not all that difficult to understand.
	By the way, a lot of that humanitarian assistance, Israel is pouring humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip.
	And a ton of it is being stolen by Israel's enemies, Hamas, which are still very much present.
	Finally, he says, Rafa's on the border with Egypt and Egypt is really upset.
	Weird how the United States won't put any pressure on Egypt whatsoever to provide humanitarian aid, escape routes for people.
	You know what Egypt has done?
	Egypt has done nothing.
	Egypt has put up a giant wall, a three barrier wall on the border of Gaza.
	And they've said, we're not even gonna talk about temporary camps for refugees so that they can move into, say, the Sinai Desert temporarily and then move back into Gaza when all of this is over.
	Egypt's like, nope, we're not taking anyone.
	We're not going to allow any of that.
	Once again, it is truly incredible how the burden is on Israel to take care of Gaza's civilian population that elected Hamas, is sympathetic to Hamas, the Arab nations surrounding, Which are putting pressure on Israel.
	So it's Israel's job to take care of everyone there and also to destroy Hamas.
	I've never heard of a war like this, truly.
	World War II was not fought like this.
	If you're talking about a civilian population that sides with Israel, that would be one thing.
	That would look more like Korea or like Vietnam.
	If you're talking about a civilian population that is largely integrated with the terror group and that supports the terror group, What are they even talking about?
	Normally you'd use counterinsurgency tactics in a situation like this.
	You'd create safe enclaves.
	You'd clear those enclaves and you would hold those enclaves moving forward.
	And that will be Israel's plan moving forward.
	But the first thing you have to do is destroy the offensive military capacity of Hamas.
	And this administration is attempting to full stop prevent that.
	Which is crazy.
	So basically they're saying we would love to see you destroy Hamas.
	We're just going to prevent you from doing so.
	Meanwhile, Sullivan acknowledges that Israel, which is supposedly... Netanyahu is supposedly the bad guy, right?
	Netanyahu is so terrible, doesn't represent the Israeli people.
	By the way, on this, he 100% represents the Israeli people.
	The vast majority of Israelis want an operation in Rafah to end this.
	Again, this is the equivalent of the Allies getting outside Berlin in 1945, being like, you know what?
	There are a lot of civilians in Berlin.
	We're probably just gonna have to leave Hitler in place in the bunker.
	That's really the only choice at this point.
	Netanyahu, in an attempt to make nice with the Americans, is actually sending a delegation to DC to listen to the old man badger him about military plans, which is absurd.
	On the call today, President Biden asked the Prime Minister to send a senior interagency team composed of military, intelligence, and humanitarian officials to Washington in the coming days to hear U.S.
	concerns about Israel's current Rafah planning and to lay out an alternative approach that would target key Hamas elements in Rafah and secure the Egypt-Gaza border without a major ground invasion.
	Prime Minister agreed that he would send a team.
	Obviously, he has his own point of view on a RAFA operation, but he agreed that he would send a team to Washington to have this discussion and have this engagement.
	And we look forward to those discussions.
	OK, so here is the problem.
	I'm sure that if you had a magic wand and you could prevent a credible military operation that gets rid of Hamas, I'm sure Israel is willing to hear it.
	Israeli soldiers are dying literally every day at this point.
	Israel doesn't want to lose soldiers.
	If you have a magic weapon option, Joe Biden, go for it.
	But I don't think that's what this is about.
	And no one thinks that's what this is about.
	By the way, you are simultaneously putting pressure on Netanyahu and you're calling for his ouster.
	The Biden administration literally mobilized Chuck Schumer, it is clear they did this, in order to make that asinine speech on the floor of the Senate in which he called for Netanyahu to be ousted from office and called him the obstacle to peace in the region after Hamas slaughtered over a thousand Israeli citizens and took 250 hostages.
	Then Sullivan had the gall to yell at Netanyahu because Netanyahu went on the Sunday shows and he defended himself.
	And Sullivan's like, well, now you're intervening in American politics.
	Really?
	Did Netanyahu say that Joe Biden should be ousted from office?
	I missed that part.
	Or did he merely say that it is inappropriate for an American administration to call for the ouster of a Democratic ally in unprecedented fashion?
	Here's Jake Sullivan being just an idiot.
	Yesterday he talked about having the support of the majority of the Israeli people for
	his policies, including going into Rafa.
	Is there more that the administration, the U.S.
	administration, needs to do to speak to the Israeli people directly so that they don't support
	this idea of going into Rafa now?
	Well, first of all, inherent in the question is a kind of an interesting irony, which is
	you have the prime minister speaking on American television about his concerns about Americans
	interfering in Israeli politics.
	And then your question is, should Americans be speaking into Israeli politics?
	Which, in fact, we don't do nearly as much as they speak into ours.
	So this administration is going to lecture Donald Trump about anti-Semitism?
	This administration, truly, give me a flipping break to just absolute insanity.
	And just one second, we're going to get into a Supreme Court case that could very well be impactful in the 2024 election.
	First, ladies and gentlemen, behold, the iconic leftist cheers tumbler is back.
	Here it is.
	It is sending shivers down the spines of woke baristas everywhere.
	But wait, there's a twist.
	This is the original, never duplicated, Spectacular.
	Yes, it's real.
	Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	It is yours for free when you become a DailyWare Plus annual member.
	Now, I know you're thinking, membership?
	I just want the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Sure, unlimited access to ad-free, uncensored shows from the DailyWare hosts you love is awesome, and so is having hit movies and series and groundbreaking documentaries on demand.
	Yeah, that's awesome.
	But what you really want is the Leftist Tears Tumblr?
	Well, it is yours for free with an insider annual membership.
	And if you want more, new All Access members get two Leftist Tears tumblers for free.
	That's right.
	Double the cred, double the tears.
	Become an annual member today at dailywareplus.com for your iconic Leftist Tears tumbler and drink to triggering the left.
	Meanwhile, of course, Joe Biden is ailing.
	He just says dumb things every single day.
	My favorite is when he says things that he thinks are kind of feminist slogans.
	They make no sense.
	So here he was yesterday explaining that there is literally nothing a man can do that a woman can't, except for pee standing up.
	That kid in the cell is not a damn thing a man can do that a woman can't do.
	Just take the obvious.
	Pick up really heavy objects.
	Open jars of pickles.
	I could name a few.
	They throw a baseball really, really fast.
	There are a lot of them, actually.
	And there's a lot of things that women can do that men can't do, like have babies.
	Which is a superpower, but, you know, again, Joe Biden is an idiot, and I guess this is appealing to somebody.
	Well, how exactly does Joe Biden plan to win the election?
	Well, the way that he won the election in 2020 was at least partially affected by the fact that you had the FBI pushing social media companies not to, say, allow the publication and publicization of Hunter Biden's laptop material.
	This is all uncovered in these so-called Twitter files by reporters ranging from Matt Taibbi to Michael Schellenberger to Barry Weiss.
	And what those files showed is the FBI and the federal government pushing social media companies to shut down things for quote-unquote disinformation.
	And a federal appellate court ruled that this was, in fact, a violation of the First Amendment.
	It's a violation of the First Amendment because the federal government should not be telling people to take down information if that information is not quote-unquote illegal.
	And so you can make a case that, for example, it would be illegal for Russia to engage in misinformation.
	Well, the Supreme Court has been asked to rule on this now.
	If an American says the same thing, not illegal.
	That falls under the auspices of free speech.
	Well, the Supreme Court has been asked to rule on this now.
	According to the New York Times, a majority of the Supreme Court seemed wary on Monday
	of a bid by two Republican-led states to limit the Biden administration's interactions
	with social media companies, with several justices questioning the state's legal
	theories and factual assertions.
	Most of the justices appeared convinced that government officials should be able to try
	to persuade private companies, whether news organizations or tech platforms,
	not to publish information so long as the requests are not backed by coercive threats.
	This seems very risky to me.
	The reason it seems risky to me is because when the FBI tells you to take something down, are you thinking to yourself, man, I'm just going to take this as kind of like a normal run-of-the-mill request to take something down, the same as if my friend asked me to take something down.
	Or are you thinking, hey, that's the FBI.
	That's a lot of people with guns and federal power and warrants and all that sort of stuff.
	Maybe I should do what they say.
	Again, the idea of the government requesting something from you, it's typically not a request.
	They're requesting something from you in the same way that Capone was requesting something from you when he asked if you'd like to pay a protection fee.
	Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, both former White House lawyers, said interactions between administration officials and news outlets provided a valuable analogy.
	Efforts by officials to influence coverage, they said, are part of a valuable dialogue that is not prohibited by the First Amendment.
	But, again, that is a different thing.
	If you are saying to a news outlet, as the White House, listen, we don't like your opinion on this, we think you're wrong, maybe you don't want to publish it, that is a different thing than law enforcement agencies like the FBI doing the same thing.
	Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the states of distorting the record in the case.
	The lawyer on behalf of the states in this particular case, Benjamin Aguinalda, who's Louisiana Solicitor General, Justice Sotomayor said to him, I have a problem with your brief.
	You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims.
	You attribute things to people who it didn't happen to.
	The justices peppered Aguinaldo with hypothetical questions about national security, doxing of public officials, contests that could endanger teenagers, all suggesting there's a role for vigorous efforts by the government to combat harmful speech.
	Justice Samuel Alito Who, again, is one of the better justices on the court.
	If you were going to rank justices on the court in terms of being awesome, it would go Thomas and then Alito second.
	Here's Alito yesterday, who is asking the lawyers for the government.
	Would you treat the New York Times the way you treat social media, like telling them to literally take things down because they're a national security threat?
	There are regular meetings, there is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms and they want to have regular meetings and they suggest, why don't you, they suggest rules that should be applied and why don't you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you and we can look it over and I thought, wow, I cannot imagine Federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there, if you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?
	And so I thought, you know, the only reason why this is taking place is because the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust In its pocket, and it's, to mix my metaphors, and it's got these big clubs available to it.
	And so it's treating Facebook and these other platforms like they're subordinates.
	Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?
	Okay, so that would be the relevant question, obviously.
	And the answer by the government is, well, maybe, maybe, the person who represented best the government's position on this on the Supreme Court is the worst justice on the Supreme Court, Katonji Brown-Jackson.
	She's the newest.
	It's between her and Sonia Sotomayor for worst justice on the court.
	The woman who can't define the word woman.
	She had some things to say in this case as well.
	She said, well, you know, we do know that the government can prohibit certain speech on the internet.
	Whether or not the government can do this, this is something I took up with Mr. Fletcher, depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence, and there may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise.
	Okay, she then continued by saying that the First Amendment shouldn't hamstring the government, which raises the question as to who exactly is designed to hamstring, considering it literally says, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.
	That's literally what it's designed to do, is to hamstring the government.
	Literally.
	In the text.
	Anyway, here is our esteemed Supreme Court Justice Khadijah Brown Jackson.
	So my biggest concern is that your view Has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods?
	I mean, what would you have the government do?
	I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done.
	And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country.
	And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
	Well, yes, that is exactly what they're claiming.
	Because harmful information may, in fact, be constitutionally protected speech.
	That's the entire question.
	We're not talking about where the government has an interest in removing illegal material.
	There, obviously, the government can do whatever it wants.
	We're talking about spaces in which the government... Like, in this particular case, the government literally pressured social media to take down Hunter Biden laptop-related posts on the basis of the lie that it was Russian disinformation, when it was not, without evidence.
	They did the same thing with regard to COVID.
	They pressured social media to take down true information because it did not jive with what the federal government was promoting at the time with regard to COVID or vaccines.
	So yes, the First Amendment was designed to specifically prevent the Congress from doing exactly what it is doing here.
	How this case goes down is going to have pretty significant ramifications for election 2024 because I can promise you that the federal government under Joe Biden militarized to go after big tech and convince them to take down information, damaging to Joe Biden.
	That is a thing that absolutely will happen.
	Speaking of censorship and the government's attempts to censor, fascinating interview between Elon Musk and Don Lemon.
	So obviously there's been this big kerfuffle about Elon Musk and Don Lemon.
	Don Lemon was supposed to have a show on X.
	Sort of like Tucker Carlson has a show on X. I don't know what the arrangements are, compensation or anything like that, but whatever arrangement there was fell apart after this interview between Musk and Lemon.
	Musk didn't like what Lemon was promoting and he basically said, you know, you can still post on X whatever you want, but I'm not going to pay you for the privilege or anything like that.
	Well, this interview was kind of fascinating because Don Lemon legitimately does not seem to understand Musk's perspective on censorship and free speech.
	And again, a lot of the left doesn't.
	This is why they're so comfortable with the idea of the government
	stepping in and forcing social media not to post certain things
	or pressuring social media not to post certain things.
	So here was Elon Musk versus Don Lemon on censorship on X.
	These are just a handful of extremely, you look at those antisemitic and racist tropes and tweets.
	And as of this morning, they're still on X.
	And from your own content policy, these posts should have been deleted.
	So why haven't they been deleted?
	Why are they still there?
	Uh, we delete things if they are illegal.
	But these have been up there for a while.
	Are they illegal?
	They're not illegal, but they're hateful and they can lead to violence.
	As I just read to you, the shooters, you know, in all of these mass shootings, attributed social media To radicalizing them.
	So, Don, you love censorship, is what you're saying?
	No, I don't love censorship.
	Then why are you asking?
	I believe in moderation, but I don't believe in... Censorship is a... Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship.
	But don't you think free speech is one thing, right?
	Or not, you know... Look, if something's illegal, we're gonna take it down.
	If it's not illegal, then we're putting our thumb on the scale and we're being censors.
	So here is the simple fact.
	Musk happens to be right about censorship and moderation.
	He also is taking seriously his job as the proprietor of a platform.
	It's literally the reason that he bought X in the first place.
	X is a platform.
	This is the whole social media debate.
	Platforms are not publishers.
	Publishers are places like the Daily Wire.
	If you are in fact A person who is wildly pro-abortion, cheers abortion, the likelihood that we're going to hire you as a host is really, really low.
	And we have no obligation to do so.
	That is not the same thing as saying that somebody should be banned from X or banned from YouTube or banned from any of the other platforms.
	If your basic idea is that you have Section 230 protection as a platform, well then you should treat that obligation seriously.
	And that's what Musk is doing right there.
	And again, I hate all the posts that Don Lemon is showing right there.
	The post that Don Lemon is showing on antisemitism or racism, I don't think Elon Musk likes those either, but that's not his point.
	Agreeing with Elon Musk is not a precondition to being on Twitter.
	And even being within Elon Musk's Overton window is not a precondition to being on X or Twitter.
	But again, there is a wild disconnect in the way that people understand the world.
	This is also obvious when Musk was talking with Don Lemon about the fact that, as we've reported on the show, that DEI, affirmative action programs, lower meritocratic standards, which is obviously true.
	Here's the clip.
	If the standards, like let's say, I think that particular thing was referring to surgeons.
	Let's say a surgeon in training is asked to do a series of operations under the supervision of a senior surgeon, and they get a bunch of those operations wrong.
	If that happens, and yet they are still approved to be a surgeon, the probability that someone will die, I think, at some point is high.
	Okay.
	I understand that.
	But that's a hypothetical.
	That doesn't mean it's happening.
	I didn't say it's happening.
	You didn't say it was happening?
	I said it will.
	I said if we lower standards, people will die.
	But why respond to something, or put something out there, that has not happened, Because I don't want it to happen.
	I think we don't want to lower standards.
	I'm not sure what Don is confused about right here.
	He literally posited that you should censor posts on X because it might lead to violence.
	That's what he's saying.
	That's a will happen, hypothetical, could happen.
	That's like saying, maybe we should, you know, we don't need to pave the roads.
	And you say, well, but we do because we want to prevent people from driving off the roads because, you know, when it's rainy out, non-paved roads are really bad and you could really hurt yourself.
	No, no, no, but it hasn't happened yet, has it?
	It hasn't happened yet, has it, is a really bad argument.
	The argument that Musk is making with regard to DEI and meritocracy is very obvious, which is, if there is a high standard for doing a thing, and you have to pass those standards in order to do the thing, the people likely to pass those standards are likely to make fewer mistakes than the people who did not pass those standards.
	This is true in literally every area of American life.
	If there are tryouts for the basketball team, you don't just say, anybody who tries out gets in.
	In fact, if you look at history, if you study history broadly, everyone was a slave.
	is remotely controversial. And the disconnect between Musk and the kind of traditional left
	is pretty wild, or the left as it has moved in the modern era. Here, for example, is Elon
	Musk versus Don Lemon on slavery.
	In fact, if you look at history, if you study history broadly, everyone was a slave. Everyone.
	Well, not everyone was a slave.
	No, everyone was a slave.
	We are all descended from slaves.
	All of us.
	It's just a question of when.
	Was it more recent or less recent?
	That's it.
	But what future do we want?
	Is this something we want to make part of our constant dialogue forever?
	Or do we want to say, let's just move on and treat everyone, you know, According to just who they are as an individual.
	I agree with you with that.
	That's the ideal.
	But what the evidence shows is that that's not what's actually in practice.
	I think we're doing better than anywhere else.
	That is true.
	Again, the evidence does show that people generally treat people as individuals.
	I don't know what evidence Don Lemon is citing there.
	Particularly in the United States, we do way better than other cultures have done in terms of treating people as individuals rather than as members of subgroups.
	And the people who are pushing against the individual Are people who are in favor of the intersectional hierarchy?
	Here's more of Musk on individualism.
	But that doesn't mean anything.
	That doesn't mean a lot to a whole lot of people who aren't able to take advantage of the opportunities that you are able to take advantage of simply because the color of your skin.
	What advantages does my color of my skin give me?
	Well, there's an ease that you have in society that many people of color don't.
	You were able to come to this country voluntarily.
	There are many people who were not able to come to the country voluntarily.
	There are people who came here as slaves, and there is a legacy of slavery that still continues on.
	There's a legacy of racism that still continues on in this country.
	That's undeniable.
	Well, if we keep talking about it nonstop, it will never go away.
	If we keep making up the central thing, it will never go away.
	Why do you believe that?
	I think I'm just making a simple statement of fact.
	Um, so I think, I think we want to get away from making everything a race or a gender or whatever issue and just treat people like individuals.
	Again, that is so obvious.
	And by the way, the data suggests that what Musk is saying there is right.
	The more people talk about these issues, the worse the issues become.
	All you have to do is look at the opinion polls since about 2013 in the United States.
	I'm honestly incredibly confused by the claim by Don Lemon that Elon Musk has gotten forward because of the color of his skin.
	I know a lot of white people and none of them are Elon Musk.
	I know a lot of black people and none of them are Elon Musk.
	Turns out Elon Musk is one of one.
	But again, that failure to understand the perspective is one of the big gaps in American life right now.
	Joining us on the line is Congressman Greg Murphy.
	Dr. Murphy represents North Carolina's third congressional district.
	He's the only practicing physician in Congress today.
	And he has now introduced legislation, the first of his kind at the federal level, to ban race-based mandates at 158 accredited medical schools and accrediting agencies that receive federal funding.
	Congressman Murphy, thanks so much for joining the show.
	Really appreciate it.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	Hope you're doing well, Ben.
	Doing well.
	So let's talk about the Educate Act that you are now introducing.
	What exactly does it do?
	This basically, you know, given the absolute disaster of what's going on in medical schools now, where instead of teaching medicine, they're teaching activism, basically withdraws federal funding for any of these schools that are preaching diversity statements, which are forcing kids to to sign diversity statements, forcing individuals to, just because of the color of their skin, say that they're an oppressor.
	Basically, it's all the bad things of what we want from trying to improve race relations and instilling them in the curriculum in medical school of all places.
	So let's talk about the kind of stuff that's happening on these campuses that is driving your legislation in the first place.
	You mentioned DEI education, but we've also seen, obviously we've reported here at Daily Wire on many of the cases at medical schools across the country of actual discrimination against incoming students or applicants with regard to medical school.
	So what is the kind of stuff that you're seeing that's driving the legislation?
	Well, Ben, if you start at the beginning, start from the admissions process, where all of a sudden, where you look at the picture of UCLA School of Medicine, there are hardly any Any literally white men.
	It's just everything that's being discriminated against.
	You know, Ben, many years ago when I was at Davidson College, I won the Sandy Black Memorial Award for the highest pre-medical student.
	I look back now, and if I had taken those same standards now and tried to get into medical school, my chances of being admitted, because I didn't have enough melanin in my skin, people didn't believe, don't like Catholics anymore, any of these other things, I don't check the correct boxes for them, My chances of getting in medical school are greatly reduced.
	And then once you get into medical school, instead of teaching a curriculum full of the facts on how to take care of all people, we're now seeing courses in social justice.
	And then for faculty, if they have to sign a diversity statement also, and I believe it's Colorado, the students have to sign a diversity statement.
	Then if they don't do that, then they don't get tenure, they don't get the right committees, they don't do a lot of the things.
	So in my opinion, this is the greatest mass peer pressure event since the Grand Inquisition.
	So we're forcing people to do something to conform.
	Very reminiscent of 1930s Germany.
	So, let's talk about the actual Act and its level of support in Congress.
	Do you have anybody else who's willing to sign on to the Act?
	What are the prospects of moving this bill forward?
	Yeah, we got about 35, I believe, cosigners so far, maybe higher than that.
	And, you know, I've been in full discussion with Dr. Fox, who's the Chairman of Education and Workforce.
	What most likely this will be is combined into a greater anti-DEI bill.
	But you know, Ben, I've been a surgeon now for close to 35 years and taking care of people, majority of which I live in a very high minority district, both here and abroad.
	I've taken care of so many people that don't look like I do and work with so many individuals, high quality individuals that don't look like I do.
	And so this, this bill, this DEI thing, Is anathema to those things.
	So, you know, we put all this together under one bill for all universities and all education, lower, I mean, excuse me, undergraduate education and higher education.
	I think America's finally realizing how detrimental this is to our meritory, previously meritorious society.
	You know, one of the things that's so amazing about all of this is that when people think about DEI or diversity standards, they think those are being applied in the liberal arts, and they think, okay, well, those are soft studies, so who really cares if it's happening there?
	But this makes a real-world difference.
	If you're talking about admitting people who are less qualified to medical school, and those people then go on to become doctors, and people who are more qualified to be doctors never become doctors.
	Then you're actively lowering the standard of care for a bunch of patients who are out there.
	Not only that, there are patients who have been for a very long time relying on the university credential as sort of a stand-in for the imprimatur of approval that goes with becoming a doctor.
	And so if the idea is that all the standards are being lowered at the various universities, those standards now become more untrustworthy.
	And that has nothing to do with race.
	That just has to do with the fact that as soon as you substitute literally any metric, Absolutely.
	And you know, Ben, medical school, some people may disagree, was always thought to be the highest, I believe, educational level.
	It was always supposedly taking our brightest individuals, because we have so much knowledge to have to access to take care of individuals.
	It was always thought to be completely merit.
	Yes, we want it to be a diverse force.
	Absolutely.
	It was doing that naturally.
	I believe 56% of the physicians are white.
	The next highest are Hispanics, or sorry, Asians.
	He's bringing a bill forward to get rid of DEI at our medical schools.
	It is much appreciated.
	not feel welcomed by their doctor because they don't share their same skin color or belief.
	It's literally going in the opposite direction of what it should be.
	Well, that is Congressman Greg Murphy.
	He's bringing a bill forward to get rid of DEI at our medical schools.
	It is much appreciated.
	Congressman, really appreciate the time and thanks so much for doing what you're doing.
	Great.
	Thanks so much, Ben.
	Good to talk to you.
	All righty, folks.
	We've reached the end of the show.
	We'll be back here tomorrow with much more.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	On The Matt Wall Show, we talk about the things that really matter.
	Real issues that affect you, your family, and our country.
	We don't just focus on politics, but also culture and current events.
	If you're looking for a daily dose of realism mixed with sarcasm, come check out The Matt Wall Show streaming on Daily Wire Plus at 1.30 Eastern Time.

▲