All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2024 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:07
Bring BACK The Ten Commandments in Schools
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
One of the great lies that is told by the international left, particularly the American left, is the idea that if you have no religion, if you are an atheist, if you are somebody who is in the post-Christian world, well that really means that you have an alternative ideology called secularism.
And the secularism is in fact not a form of religion.
It's a form of reason and logic.
That's not true.
It just simply is not true.
There are a wide variety of belief systems across the world, and one of them is, in fact, secularism.
And secularism has turned into a weird version of paganism in which nature is to be worshipped.
And one of the ways that you see that is in protesters against the climate, against the heating up of the world, which, again, some of that is anthropogenic, meaning human cause.
Some of it is probably not.
Well, these protesters believe that they are going to make the world a better place by destroying or defacing monuments.
Whether it is the Mona Lisa, or whether it's the Eiffel Tower, or now, whether it is Stonehenge.
So yesterday, environmental protesters decided it would be an amazing idea to go and spray paint Stonehenge in order to demonstrate that oil is bad.
So they are deploying all sorts of chemicals into the air in order to show that it is bad to deploy carbon into the air.
The group posted on X that Just Stop Oil protesters demanded the incoming government sign up to a legally binding treaty to phase out fossil fuels by 2030 because you can magically declare that alternative sources of energy are not going to impoverish the world and make people sicker, poorer, and live longer.
A shorter amount of time.
If you just spray paint on an ancient historical site.
An ancient pagan historical site.
There's a sort of weird resonance here.
From paganism to paganism to a few thousand year jaunt into Judeo-Christianity.
And now we've apparently moved beyond that into a different form of religion.
That's what happened yesterday at Stonehenge.
and here's some film of the just stop oil protesters damaging Stonehenge in the name
of the climate.
ok sorry
Hsiao, I'm so sorry Stop it
hide yourself I'm so sorry
I'm so sorry Hsiao, I'm so sorry
And then My name's Niamh, I'm 21, and I'm a student at the University of Oxford.
Today, I'm taking action with Just Stop Oil to demand that the UK government commits to signing the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and promises to stop burning fossil fuels by 2030.
To refuse to do so is to warrant death, destruction, and suffering on an absolutely immense and immeasurable scale.
Today, we'll be taking action at Stonehenge, the day before the solstice.
For thousands of years, people have come to Stonehenge on the solstice to celebrate our natural world, to celebrate the beauty of our natural world.
But I can't help thinking, what does it look like today?
And what the heck have we done to it?
These stones have stood here for 5,000 years.
What will the world look like in 5,000 years time?
Will our legacy be becoming ever more clear that we end the fossil fuel era or the fossil fuel era ends us?
Well, the new religion here obviously involves defacing monuments.
It also involves gender non-binariness.
It's this sort of Gnostic religion that exists out there.
The reason I point this out is not because I think that it is wildly important that these morons keep gluing themselves to walls and floors and paintings and streets and all the rest of this stuff.
I think that actually they're doing their cause a great disservice because it turns out most people object.
to watching historic objects defaced.
The reason I point this out is because the great lie that I talked about a couple of minutes ago, this great lie that secularism is not its own form of religion, is a lie that has been telescoped into American law.
This comes up today because the Louisiana governor has now declared that he is going to put the Ten Commandments back in schools and the left is losing its absolute mind.
According to the Associated Press, Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom.
It's the latest move from a GOP-dominated legislature pushing a conservative agenda under a new governor, which is usually what happens when you have, you know, Republicans in the legislature and also Republicans as the governors usually get a more conservative agenda.
The legislation, signed by Republican Governor Jeff Landry into law on Wednesday, requires a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in large, easily readable fonts in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities.
Landry said, if you want to respect the rule of law, you've got to start from the original lawgiver, who was Moses, who got the commandments from God.
Opponents naturally jumped into action, suggesting that this was wildly unconstitutional.
Under the law, state funds will not be used to implement the mandate.
The posters will be paid for through donations, so it's not state money.
It's just going to say that there has to be a display there.
It also authorizes, but does not require, the display of other items in K-12 public schools, including the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance, Well, very quickly, the ACLU, which is a trash organization, they used to stand for free speech.
Now they just stand for radical leftism.
They immediately announced this was unconstitutional and they were going to stand up to it.
CNN's Eli Honig, who is one of their legal analysts, he says this is clearly unconstitutional.
We'll explain why he's wrong in just a moment and why it matters.
But this is actually the size.
This is 11 by 14.
This is what, actually, the size that has to be printed.
Obviously, clearly legible.
You can read this.
And it's just notable that this is what they're saying has to be in each classroom.
But my first question was, you know, is requiring this, regardless of size, does it violate the First Amendment?
Yes, flagrantly, in my view.
If you wanted a perfect example of what the First Amendment prohibits, I think this is it.
The First Amendment says, Congress, government, shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, meaning state entities can't do things that endorse any particular religion or religiosity in general.
And if you look at those ten, there are some, I know one of the defenses is, well, these are themes that are consistent throughout civilized society and throughout religion.
Shall not kill.
Number six, I'm cheating because I'm looking.
But you know, don't kill, don't rob, don't steal, that kind of thing.
But there are some commandments that are inherently religious.
Observe the Sabbath day.
I'm the only God that you may worship.
So it's an inherently religious document.
I should add, this came up before.
In 1980, there was a case out of Kentucky in the Supreme Court, almost the exact same facts, and the Supreme Court said, unconstitutional.
Okay, so here is the problem with this particular argument.
We'll get more on this in just a moment.
First, Saudi Arabia recently ended its 50-year petrodollar deal with the United States, which does have the potential to weaken the U.S.
dollar.
Since 1974, Saudi Arabia has sold oil solely in U.S.
dollars, which was big for our global economic dominance.
Well, now they're looking at other options.
If there is less demand for the U.S.
dollar over time, what happens to its value?
For reasons like this, I think it's important to diversify some of your savings into gold.
You can do that with the help of my friends over at Birch Gold.
For over 20 years, Birchgold's group has helped tens of thousands of Americans to protect their savings by converting an IRA or 401k into an IRA in physical gold.
To learn more, text Ben to 989898, claim your free, no-obligation info kit on gold.
Birchgold has earned my trust with their education-first approach, as well as the trust of thousands of happy customers.
They understand that navigating financial decisions can be scary.
That's why their dedicated in-house IRA department is there to guide you every step of the way.
Protect your savings with gold.
Text Ben to 989898 to talk to one of Birchgold's experts and claim your free info kits today.
That's Ben to 989898.
Text Ben to 989898.
The problem is that the United States is not a fundamentally secular country.
What I mean by that is that it is not the French Republic.
This is a point that was made by Justice Scalia in a dissent in the 2005 case.
In which the Constitution of France says France is a secular republic in which religion is to be excluded generally from the public forum.
That is not the United States of America.
The First Amendment was designed to guarantee the practice of religion against the federal government.
So just to do the history of the First Amendment very quickly here, this idea that there is a separating wall between church and state in the sense that religion is never supposed to impact People's values and how they vote.
Or religion can never be promoted in the public square.
Or, in fact, religion generally can never be promoted against irreligion generally by the government.
That is also untrue.
There's no historical basis for this.
The First Amendment specifically says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Number one, this was never supposed to originally be implemented in the states.
It took all the way until the 1940s for the Supreme Court to declare that this was now going to be applied at the state level.
It's one of the weirdnesses of constitutional law.
The first rule is stop looking at the Constitution when you do constitutional law, because the Bill of Rights is specifically applicable to the federal government, not to the state government.
In fact, 9 of the 13 colonies had established churches at the time of the Revolutionary War.
Connecticut maintained its Congregationalist church, like a state-sponsored church, until 1818.
New Hampshire until 1819.
Massachusetts until 1833.
So well past the establishment of the First Amendment, there were states in the United States that had established religions.
Why?
Because again, the goal here was to stop the federal government from establishing its own generalized religion that would prohibit people at the state level from having their own religions.
The idea that secularism was supposed to predominate in the United States is obviously untrue and none of the founders believed that.
Even the founders who tended toward atheism.
tended to believe that religion had an extraordinarily positive effect on the body politic, and so the promotion of religion generally was considered a good thing by the Founding Fathers.
As President John Adams wrote a letter to the Massachusetts militia, quote, we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.
Our Constitution was made only from moral and religious people.
George Washington said in his first inaugural address, quote, Even James Madison, who wrote the Non-Establishment Clause of the Virginia State Constitution, for example, he did so because he thought he was strengthening religion.
in the economy and course of nature in an insoluble union between virtue and happiness.
Even James Madison, who wrote the non-establishment clause of the Virginia state constitution,
for example, he did so because he thought he was strengthening religion.
He thought that if you established a religion in Virginia, it would prohibit the flowering
of religion in the private sphere.
Thomas Jefferson, the guy who everyone talks about in terms of coining the phrase separation
between church and state, recognized, quote, the moral branch of religion instructs us
how to live well and worthily in society.
Thank you.
Now what the courts have done, or had done, for the last several decades, is something that is completely unprecedented and stupid.
They have read the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as in opposition to one another.
Remember, the Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
There are two ways to read that, and the Supreme Court has read this in the dumbest possible way.
One is that Congress shall not prohibit you from freely exercising a religion, and the second is Congress shall not establish any religion, and it has read them completely separately.
And what that's done is it has put them in conflict with one another, because it turns out that if you express your religion freely in the public square, then the Supreme Court might say you're violating the Establishment Clause.
But that's never how this provision was meant to be read.
They were meant to be read in tandem.
The basic idea was you can't establish, say, Catholicism as the official religion of the United States, because in doing so, you will quash the free exercise of people of other religions via compulsion.
That is what the Constitution was designed to prohibit, was compulsion in religion.
Well, there's nothing compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall.
If there was something compulsory about a sign on a classroom wall, there'd be all sorts of serious free speech issues in a classroom, because it turns out classroom walls are filled with all sorts of stuff that's on the walls.
Is it violating my free speech if somebody puts up on the wall a sign that says something I disagree with?
I'm not sure how that violates my free speech, but the same argument is made about religion.
That if I walk into a public school and there is a sign that quotes the Bible, in a non-denominational way, by the way, because it turns out that the three major religions, traditionally, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all agree that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and they agree on the content of the Ten Commandments.
So in 1971, the Supreme Court took up a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman, and they came up with an incredibly stupid test to determine whether some sort of government action violated the separation of church and state.
They said that any law had to fulfill three conditions.
One, it had to have a secular purpose.
Two, it had to have a predominantly secular effect.
And three, it had to not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Now, when you read that, that is on its face nonsensical.
It basically doesn't set any standard at all.
Because I can make an argument for virtually any religious display that it both violates the Lemon Test and also does not violate the Lemon Test.
In 1980, the Supreme Court, this is the case that Eli Honig was referring to, in a case called Stone v. Graham, there was a law that required the classroom display of the Ten Commandments.
And the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional because it had no secular legislative purpose.
They said the Ten Commandments convey a religious undertone because they include the religious duties of believers, worshiping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, observing the Sabbath day.
But again, that is based on a fundamental misreading that again is enshrined in Lemon, that the government of the United States has to take no position between religion and irreligion.
That the government of the United States has no, none, interest in promoting public morality via generalized religion.
That the government has to be absolutely agnostic about whether it is promoting the Ten Commandments or whether it is promoting just stop oil.
That these are paganism, Judeo-Christian religion, the Ten Commandments, all these things are of a piece according to the Supreme Court from 1971 on.
We'll get to more on that in a moment.
First, an eternal truth.
Vegetables.
Bad to consume.
They don't taste good.
I don't know why God did that, but that's just the way that it happens to be.
Well, I don't have to eat those vegetables quite as much anymore.
Neither do you with Balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies.
Balance of Nature Fruits and Veggies is the most convenient way to ensure you get your daily intake of fruits and vegetables.
Balance of Nature uses an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and veggies into whole food supplements without sacrificing those natural antioxidants.
The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar.
The only thing in balance of nature fruit and veggie capsules are the fruits and the veggies.
You need nutrients to function at your best each and every day.
Balance of Nature will help you do just that.
It's kosher, which means I can bring it with me on the road and keep me going strong.
So, head on over to balanceofnature.com, use promo code SHAPIRO, get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
Plus, get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Again, balanceofnature.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Go check them out right now for the special deal.
In 2005, there's a case that's very similar about a public display of the Ten Commandments.
And Justice Scalia dissents in this case, and here's what he writes.
What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority
is the absolute indispensable requirement that judicial opinions
be grounded in consistently applied principle.
He, by the way, is ripping the lemon test.
He's saying there's no consistently applied principle.
Besides appealing to the demonstrably false principle that government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today's opinion suggests the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another.
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely non-denominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all.
One cannot say the word God or the Almighty.
One cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God and the gods pay no attention to human affairs.
With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.
In other words, every time Joe Biden finishes his speech and says, God bless our troops, why isn't that an establishment of religion in the same way it would theoretically be an establishment of religion to put the Ten Commandments on a public school classroom?
And the answer is, because it's not establishing religion.
Joe Biden isn't forcing you to do anything, and neither is the sign on the public school classroom.
It is encouraging you to abide by the central, fundamental, moral premises of the West.
The attempt to remove the Ten Commandments says more about the society than the attempt to replace them.
All of Western civilization is based on a merger of Judeo-Christian ethics, found in the Old and the New Testaments, and Greek reason.
Well, in our modern society, we've decided to basically call all of those things dispensable.
We're just gonna get rid of all of them, and that's why you end up with morons who are spray-painting orange on the Stonehenge Monument.
That is why they're doing that.
Because it turns out that when you move into a post-reason and also post-religious society, religion and reason, by the way, for most of human history, were thought to bolster one another.
Because as it turns out, there is no basis in evolutionary biology for the notion that there is this thing called right reason that ends in actual, factual, truthful statements, like capital T truth, independent of your mind.
That is a fundamental faith principle.
And it is necessary in order to pursue things like science and reason.
This is why everybody from Thomas Aquinas to Maimonides believed that there was a consonance between faith principles and rationality.
But first society decided to divide those two things to say that there was faith principle and that was irrationality.
And then there were reasonable principles and that was reason.
And then they decided to dispense with both of those because it turns out that without the grounding of particular faith principles, reason collapses in on itself.
Because you simply cannot make, it is not possible to make a case for the idea of secular reason and logic absent certain basic premises.
It's not my argument, it's an argument made by a philosopher and mathematician named Alvin Platinga.
That the sort of fundamental argument in favor of human reason is that your brain is capable of grasping higher truths.
But what in the meat package that is your brain allows it to grasp something called truth rather than something called adaptability, like whatever makes you survive?
It is that move from the adaptive to the true that is something that cannot be bridged without a fundamental faith assumption.
In any case, as it turns out, a society that takes down the Ten Commandments Tends to be a society that does not obey the Ten Commandments, and does not believe that the Ten Commandments are important.
And it turns out the Ten Commandments are really, really important.
Not because secular societies, meaning non-Judeo-Christian religious societies, are going to involve themselves in murder necessarily, or that people will simply decide that without a sign on the wall saying, Thou shalt not kill, that is totally fine to kill.
But it's the idea that without an absolute moral arbiter sitting at the top of the hierarchy, That that becomes a matter of argument.
The whole point of having a sort of higher morality that is non-appealable, there is no debate about it, is precisely that.
That once you start having debates about the rightness or wrongness of killing, you end up in some pretty dicey moral territory pretty quickly.
On a sort of constitutional level, this is why the Constitution was written in order to enshrine certain principles and to put them beyond the realm of debate.
It's why you have to have a supermajority in order to change the Constitution, for example.
When it comes to godly commandments, even from a secular point of view, let's say that you're a total atheist and you believe that there is no God.
Why might you believe that the Ten Commandments are important?
Because it takes certain fundamental principles and puts them beyond the scope of debate.
And it's pretty good that those are beyond the scope of debate.
You don't want to live in a society where thou shalt not kill is not beyond the scope of debate.
Well, that really is like a debatable proposition.
Or thou shalt not commit adultery.
It turns out that that one has been put to the test in the United States, and it's ended pretty poorly.
Actually, it turns out that many of the central principles of the Ten Commandments have been put to the test in the United States since we've decided not to obey them, and it's ended really, really poorly for the United States and for Western civilization in general.
I think it's almost, not almost, it is completely inarguable that a society that abides by the Ten Commandments is going to be better than a society that does not.
How about honor thy parents?
We're now a society that does not honor our parents.
We're a society that scorns our parents as racists and bigots and white supremacists and vestiges of the past.
Has that made our society better or worse?
How about do not bear false witness?
We live in a society now in which you are totally allowed to bear false witness so long as the political motivations of the person against whom you are bearing the false witness are suspect.
Has that made this society better or worse?
How about the 10th commandment?
Do not covet other people's possessions.
We live in a society that's totally done away with that, in which covetousness is now seen as an actual political program.
Bernie Sanders' new party, if he ever decided to start one, should be called the covetousness party.
Because that's all he does, just covets other people's stuff, believing that it is his own.
It turns out that a society has to have a centralizing philosophy.
The centralizing philosophy of the United States used to be grounded in Judeo-Christian virtue.
That is why it is good to put the Ten Commandments back up on the wall.
Not that everybody's going to start abiding by them, but to remind people that, in fact, a functional society has to have a functional philosophy.
And the most functional philosophy over the last several thousand years has sprung from those Ten Commandments.
And there is nothing wrong with that constitutionally.
There's nothing wrong with that legally.
It is a very, very good thing.
We'll do more on this in a moment.
First, as social unrest escalates and crime rates continue to climb, securing the safety of your family is more crucial than ever.
In these uncertain times, having effective but non-lethal options is really, really important.
Introducing the Burna Less Lethal Pistol Launcher.
Developed by a team of common-sense gun owners who understand the importance of having choices, they engineered the Burna Launcher as a powerful tool for self-defense, allowing users to de-escalate threatening situations without having to resort to deadly force.
Now, I'm about as pro-Second Amendment as it gets.
I own many, many guns.
But, honestly, the thought of using lethal force, even in defense of my home, that's a scary thing.
Don't misunderstand me.
If somebody invades my home, I'll do everything in my power to protect my family and take out the bad guy.
But I'd rather be able to resort to non-lethal measures if I have that ability.
They're emotional and psychological ramifications to using force, and it turns out that in today's culture, there might be legal ramifications to self-defense as well.
For me, the Burna is a safer, more sensible alternative that could potentially save lives on both sides, protecting both the user and the aggressor.
For those who are adverse to owning a firearm, the Burna is the optimal choice, delivering formidable stopping power without having to take a life.
The Burna is an indispensable tool to keep you and your family safe.
It's legal in all 50 states.
No background checks or permits required.
They've received over 15,000 4.5 star reviews.
Hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Burna can ship directly to your door.
The Burna isn't just an option, it's an essential component for responsible, non-lethal protection.
Visit burna.com slash ben for 10% off your purchase.
That's B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash ben to check out the latest news about Burna.
That's B-Y-R-N-A.
And again, no one's being forced to pray in the classroom.
In fact, even when prayer in the classroom was a thing, no one was being forced to pray in the classroom.
You were allowed to sit it out, for example.
But beyond all of that, it turns out that a functional society understands that freedom exists because of the virtue upon which it sits, and within the confines of the virtuous institutions that also exist.
We're a society that's basically decided that freedom can destroy everything else around.
It can be used as a sort of universal acid to get rid of virtue.
And then it turns out freedom without virtue is just vice.
And that's effectively what we have seen in the United States of America.
So good for the governor of Louisiana.
I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to uphold this this time.
Mainly because, again, in 2022, Justice Gorsuch correctly pointed out that Lemon was unworkable.
He said that it creates, quote, a vice between the establishment clause on one side and the free speech and free exercise clauses on the other, which is a point that I made a little bit earlier.
And he is right about all of that.
So, I think the United States will be a better place for having displays like this in public places.
It turns out that having displays about innate Judeo-Christian morality in public places, in a non-denominational fashion, is a pretty good thing.
And meanwhile, Joe Biden is running an election campaign that at the very best is dicey.
There's a new Fox News poll out.
It shows that Joe Biden is up 50 to 48 on Donald Trump.
That's his first lead in the Fox News poll in quite a while.
It's still well within the margin of error.
And if this is a margin of error election, it doesn't look like that's going to go particularly well for Joe Biden.
But it is a reminder to Republicans, this thing is not a cakewalk by any stretch of the imagination.
I think there are a lot of Republicans out there who, because Trump is outperforming his polling data in 2020, and because the 2020 election was really, really close, he ended up losing by about 7 million popular votes, but he ended up losing in the Electoral College by a grand total of like 43,000 votes spread over a few different states.
Well, it's still a really, really close election.
Everything is margin of error.
So don't be fooled.
If you're a Republican, don't be fooled into complacency about this election.
Joe Biden has decided that he is going to run the Barack Obama 2012 strategy.
The Barack Obama 2012 strategy is present a bunch of give-outs to particular constituency groups and claim that your opponent is pure, unbridled, malicious evil.
The fact that it worked in 2012 against Mitt Romney, who, again, is like the most milquetoast human being on planet Earth, is one of the great amazements of politics, as I've talked about before.
But that is, in fact, the Joe Biden strategy.
Right now, again, just to repeat the polls, the polls, as of today, in the RealCourt Politics Polling Average, show Donald Trump up about five points in Arizona, more than five points in Nevada, which is just a blowout Nevada.
He's dead even in Wisconsin.
He's dead even in Michigan.
He's up a couple of points in Pennsylvania.
He's up about five points in North Carolina.
He's up about five points in Georgia.
So again, those are good numbers for Trump, but they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, he's going to wallop Joe Biden numbers.
So, Joe Biden's strategy, apparently, is to, again, just pursue giveouts and handouts, no matter what that does for the broader body politic.
So, in other words, concentrated benefits for particular groups that Joe Biden needs in order to win, and diffuse costs across the population, except sometimes those costs are not so diffuse.
As, for example, in the case of the Maryland mother named Rachel Morin.
According to CNN, a months-long investigation into the 2023 murder of a Maryland mother has led to the arrest of a 23-year-old man, according to local authorities.
Victor Antonio Martinez Hernandez, a citizen of El Salvador, was arrested at a bar in Tulsa, Oklahoma, according to the Tulsa Police Department.
The suspect lied about his true identity, denied any knowledge of the crimes, for which he is wanted.
When they ran his information to the authorities, they found he was wanted in connection with a rape in Maryland.
He faces charges of first-degree murder and first-degree rape in that case.
But as it turns out, he is suspected of multiple crimes since he illegally crossed the border into the United States in February 2023.
One of those crimes is the murder of Rachel Morin, who was killed along a hiking trail in Bel Air in August of 2023.
Apparently, Rachel was not his first victim.
And according to the police, this person fled to the United States illegally after committing a brutal murder of a young woman in El Salvador a month earlier in January.
So how exactly did this person get into the country?
That has not been made clear at this point.
Did he just show up at the border and claim asylum and they let him right in?
Did he cross between points of entry?
Unclear at this point.
Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security denied culpability of Rachel Moran.
Here he was.
What do you say to critics who blame the administration for allowing something like this to happen?
Obviously, this is something that you hear in right-wing media all the time.
Jim, first and foremost, of course, our hearts break for the children, the family, the loved ones, the friends of the individual who was the woman, the mother.
Jim, a criminal is responsible for the criminal act.
The criminal who committed this heinous act should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law and forcefully so.
That is my response.
So his response is, the criminal's responsible, yes.
But who opened the door to the criminal, Alejandro?
Who let him in the country?
That's the entire question here, especially as Joe Biden now pursues a mass amnesty.
We'll get to more on this in just one moment.
First, dudes, have you heard of Rose Sparks?
This dual-action prescription merges the powerhouse ingredients found in generic Viagra and Cialis, Sildenafil and Tadalafil, into one formidable treatment.
But it's not merely about the ingredients in the medication, it's about how you use it.
That's why Rose Sparks are designed to dissolve under your tongue, which is huge, because dissolvable treatments hit your bloodstream faster than old-school pills.
The result is quicker onset of action, reducing the wait time typically associated with traditional pills.
Plus, Cedalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, lasts in the system for up to 36 hours.
So, for treatment that works fast and lasts longer, connect with a provider at ro.co.ben to find out if RoSparks are right for you.
That's ro.co.ben.
Again, that's ro.co.ben.
Ro.co.ben.
Compounded drugs are permitted to be prescribed under federal law but are not FDA approved and do not undergo FDA safety, effectiveness, or manufacturing review.
Only available if prescribed after an online consultation with a provider.
If you are dealing With something like ED, why not go get it taken care of at Roe.co in the quickest, most effective manner.
Again, that's Roe.co slash Ben.
Find out if RoeSparks are right for you.
According to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, cynicism, thy new name, is immigration politics.
And President Biden is proving it again with his Tuesday announcement he will bestow legal status on the undocumented spouses and children of U.S.
citizens.
The order might be illegal.
It could be reversed by a new president next year.
It will further poison the immigration debate.
But hey, any port in an election year storm.
The plan offers a new path to citizenship for an estimated half million migrants who entered the country illegally but are now married to U.S.
citizens.
The Department of Homeland Security says this will apply to anyone who has lived in the country for 10 years as of Monday, is married to an American and poses no security or criminal threat.
Some 50,000 children of these spouses will also be eligible for citizenship.
So as the Wall Street Journal points out, This order is legally uncertain and might boomerang on spouses who apply for legal status.
Biden is asserting an authority known as Parole in Place, which allows DHS to let illegal immigrants remain in the United States while they apply for citizenship.
The statute specifies it can only be prescribed on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian or significant public reasons.
The administration says it allows blanket parole.
So he is effectively now daring the Republicans to basically try to deport these people.
That is the goal, according to Politico, like openly the goal of the Biden administration.
This is all just bait.
According to Politico, Joe Biden on Tuesday unveiled major new actions, but in issuing a new policy granting legal protections to undocumented spouses, the president was trying to lure Donald Trump into a very specific debate too.
Inside Biden's team, advisors are betting that the new policies unveiled at the White House on Tuesday will reignite a larger conversation about one of the most controversial chapters of the Trump era, the separation of families on the southern border.
Now, as you recall, it was Barack Obama who originally put the kids in cages.
It turns out that under the Flores Settlement, families cannot be held together in custody, so children are generally released into the interior of the United States to a family member, maybe, we hope, and then the parents are kept in custody if they immigrate illegally.
Now, Joe Biden is attempting to dare Trump to get into this.
The problem for Joe Biden is I'm not sure this is a political winner.
I mean, the reality is that most Americans are just not all that interested in Joe Biden's sympathy-first approach to illegal immigration.
Joe Biden advisor Tom Perez, he says this immigration policy is incredibly smart.
Of course, of course.
What makes the White House confident that this plan is going to survive legal scrutiny and actually go into effect later this summer when so many other immigration plans from Trump, from Obama, have been struck down by the courts?
Well, I think it's the right thing to do, it's the legal thing to do, and it's the smart thing to do.
What the president did two weeks ago was to secure the border because we have to both secure the border and provide lawful pathways.
That's what a balanced approach is all about.
Well, I mean, a balanced approach would involve closing the border, which is the thing that you are not, in fact, doing.
You can tell how radical this program is by who is backing it.
Pramila Jayapal, who's the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and a far-left radical, she says this is the biggest thing that we've seen in the United States since DACA.
Not shockingly, DACA also happened to happen in the middle of the 2012 election.
This is huge.
Talk about how President Biden got from that previous executive order, which a lot of immigration
advocacy groups denounced to this.
Yes, well, it is huge.
It is the biggest thing that we have seen since DACA in terms of protections for people.
Half a million people, Joy.
And these are folks who are married to U.S. citizens, have been here for at least 10 years,
have U.S. citizen children in some cases, not in some cases.
And to be able to say to them, President Biden is keeping your family together.
He is making sure that you do not have to leave the country and go through some arcane
process and maybe not be able to get back and not even be able to get back in, which
is why most people didn't do it, because I didn't have that guarantee.
OK, so Joe Biden wants to engage in this conversation.
I'm just telling you, that's not how this conversation is going to go.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore, who's deeply involved with the Biden campaign, he was asked about the killing of Rachel Moran.
And he says, well, yeah, it turns out that the migration crisis is really affecting Americans all the way across the spectrum, including in Democratic states.
When people think about the border crisis and they think that this is only impacting a handful of states, you know, Hartford County, in our state, where this, where this, where this brutal happened, is 1,800 miles away from the border.
And so when people think this is only impacting a few states, this is impacting every single one of us.
This inaction that we continue to see to get any form of sensible immigration policy done is impacting all of us, because all of us in local jurisdictions deal with the consequence to this.
Again, that is a Democrat, and that's going to be the actual argument.
The argument's going to be about Lake and Riley, and it's going to be about Rachel Warren, and it is not going to be about the immigration status of people who are already living in the country and have been doing so for a very long time.
Because it turns out the top of the heap for people's concerns about illegal immigration is first close the border, and then decide who gets to stay and who gets to go.
One of the things I notice whenever Joe Biden will roll out a proposal like this, he'll bring up a dreamer, some kid who was born in Mexico or something and arrived in the United States illegally at the age of three and then grew up and became a nurse.
And the answer to that is, OK, that person can stay, but the person who's on welfare cannot.
It turns out that the United States does have the single capacity to go through all the people who have illegally immigrated and decide whether they are of net benefit to the United States and its population or whether they are not.
Senator Joni Ernst correctly points out that Joe Biden is rolling out the red carpet for
once again, President Biden has rolled out the red carpet for illegal migrants.
So we're hearing the double speak again.
Out of one side of his mouth, he's saying, look at me, I'm doing an executive order.
We're going to control the border.
And then on the other hand now, he's offering basically mass amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants that are currently within the country.
Again, you're gonna get more and more of these stories leading up to the election.
Because it turns out that when you let millions of people through the border unvetted, some of those people are going to be criminals.
And when you hear the argument that illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than kind of natural born American citizens, the answer to that is, so what?
What does that have to do with anything?
That's a stupid argument because we are not saying that they have a natural right to be in the United States.
We're saying there should be zero crimes from the people that we voluntarily allow to be in the United States.
Meanwhile, on the international front, everything seems to be collapsing around Joe Biden because it turns out that weakness in the foreign realm is quickly met with strength by America's enemies.
Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un signed an agreement that pledges mutual aid if either country faces aggression, a strategic pact that comes as they face escalating standoffs with the West.
I'm unclear exactly what the details of the deal are.
Both leaders are describing it as a major upgrade in their relations.
So to all of those people on both right and left who seem to be standing for Russia these days, I'll just point out that they are the ones who are allied with an absolute hellhole slave state called North Korea on the one hand, and then another hellhole slave state called China on the other.
It turns out in the world there are some bad guys and there are some good guys, and Vladimir Putin is not one of the good guys.
The summit came as Vladimir Putin visited North Korea for the first time in 24 years, and the U.S.
and its allies expressed growing concern over a possible arms arrangement in which Pyongyang provides Moscow with badly needed munitions for its war in Ukraine in exchange for economic assistance and technology transfers that could enhance the threat posed by Kim's nuclear weapons and missile program.
Now, one of the things that's truly amazing about the modern world is that most of the countries we would consider allied countries are countries that rely extraordinarily heavily on tech, like real battlefield tech.
You're talking about high-tech drones, you are talking about JDAMs, you're talking about laser-guided munitions, you know, all sorts of sophisticated weaponry that are specifically designed in order not to waste shots and really to, in the main, distinguish military from civilian targets.
And meanwhile, Vladimir Putin, North Korea, these folks, they don't care.
They're using really, really cheap munitions against really, really sophisticated and extraordinarily expensive munition.
And so the order of battle over time is going to change radically in favor of the people who are fighting a more basic form of warfare because they don't care about these things.
And let's better just acknowledge that reality.
It's true in Israel.
It's true in Ukraine.
It's true pretty much everywhere.
When the bad guys are willing to kill their civilians and yours, and you are spending extraordinary amounts of money, yes, you're doing the more moral thing in order to not kill their civilians, the civilians they're hiding behind, and in many cases sympathize with them.
But by the same token, that requires a higher level of willpower and a higher level of expenditure.
And that's just the way that it's going to have to work.
Because it turns out that Russia can churn out munitions like nobody's business so long as they are World War II era munitions.
And originally the theory of the war was that Ukraine's technological advantage would allow it to fight Russia to a standstill.
But it turns out that Russia's way of war has always been to grind down its opponents through extraordinary use of bloody brutality to its own soldiers and others.
So that is consolidation number one between Russia and North Korea.
Meanwhile, Xi Jinping has been purging his own military.
Supposedly he's doing so to fight corruption.
In reality, the reason that Xi Jinping does anything is to consolidate his own power.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Chinese leader Xi Jinping ordered a redoubled campaign to eradicate graft and enforce loyalty in the military.
It's really about enforcing loyalty.
Suggesting no end to a purge in the country's defense establishment that has raised questions about Beijing's ability to wage war.
She used the first military political war conference in a decade to warn against the dangers of corruption and ideological slippage in the PLA.
That's the People's Liberation Army cautioning that decaying discipline could torpedo efforts to field a fighting force capable of taking on powerful Western militaries.
He said the gun barrel must always be grasped by people who are loyal and reliable to the party.
So he's tightening his grip on the party.
Again, as China enters a state of serious economic and demographic decline, they become more dangerous, not less.
Meanwhile, Iran is signaling its own major boost in a nuclear program at a key site.
All of this is perfectly foreseeable.
It turns out that when the United States draws a major contrast between itself and its allies in the Middle East, and that's not just Israel, it's also Saudi Arabia, basically everybody who's been boxing in Iran, it turns out Iran gets pretty frisky, as they've been doing at Israel's northern border, as they've been doing via Hamas, as they've been doing via the Houthis, as they've been doing directly from Iran when they sent 300-odd missiles at Israel, as they've been doing from Iraq.
They've been activating their forces everywhere in the region, and now they're upping the ante on their nuclear program, which is weird because I was informed by the Biden administration that they were going to be able to come in and cut a deal with those nice Iranians.
The absolute level of naivete of the foreign policy establishment on the left is, it's truly awesome to behold.
It is an awe-inspiring thing.
The belief that the Iranians, they're just, you know, a little misguided, but you can negotiate with them, and they're going to come to an agreement because, you know, you negotiate with people you disagree with.
Well, yes, and then the negotiations fail when the people you disagree with actually want to murder you and your family.
It turns out it's very difficult to come up with a negotiating tactic that ends that particular demand.
According to the Washington Post, a major expansion underway inside Iran's most heavily protected nuclear facility could soon triple the site's production of enriched uranium and give Tehran new options for quickly assembling a nuclear arsenal if it chooses to, according to confidential documents and analysis by weapons experts.
Inspectors with the IAEA confirmed new construction activity inside the Fordow enrichment plant just days after Tehran formally notified the nuclear washrock of plans for a substantial upgrade at the underground facility built inside a mountain in north-central Iran.
Iran also disclosed plans for expanding production at its main enrichment plant near the center of Natanz.
Now, why are they doing this?
Why are they publicly saying they're doing this?
The answer is because they believe that the more they publicly threaten, the more the Biden administration will put pressure on Israel.
That's what they believe.
And they're not wrong.
They believe that so long as they ratchet up the pressure, From Hezbollah, that the thing that Joe Biden wants more than anything else is not to have an ongoing war in the Middle East, and he doesn't have a lot of leverage with Hezbollah, he doesn't have a lot of leverage with Hamas, he doesn't have a lot of leverage with Iran, but he does have some leverage with the Israelis.
Because he can simply hold them back in the middle of a war where young Israelis are going and losing limbs and dying in order to defend their homeland.
It's like an amazing, amazing thing.
Donald Trump is not wrong when he says that Joe Biden is humiliating us on the world stage.
That is absolutely true.
Joe Biden is humiliating our country on the world stage.
He's actually humiliating us.
You saw what happened this weekend.
It's turning the United States into a total joke all over the world.
He is absolutely right about that.
And what is the comeback of the Biden administration?
So you have Putin meeting with Kim Jong-un.
You have Xi on the move.
You have the Iranian mullahs who are openly declaring that they are moving forward with their nuclear weapons development.
Hezbollah, the head of which, Nasrallah, just gave a speech yesterday in which he declared that he would effectively destroy the state of Israel if he's threatened, which is a bluff tactic because if he actually thought he could do it, he would actually go ahead and do it.
You have Hamas still declaring they will not give up hostages in order to gain even a temporary ceasefire.
And meanwhile, what is the comeback of the Biden administration?
Donald Trump's a mean man who's orange.
He's just mean.
He's orange.
John Meacham, whatever is the opposite of par excellence, he is the historian opposite of par excellence.
John Meacham.
But greatly admired by the Biden administration because he keeps pretending that Joe Biden is some sort of FDR-like figure.
He says the real problem in this presidential race is that Trump admires authoritarianism.
By the way, Trump does not quote-unquote admire authoritarianism.
What he acknowledges is that authoritarians are typically savvy players who pursue their interests with strength and alacrity.
And that's why you have to face up to them.
It's why you have to threaten them.
It's why you have to use all the methods at your disposal.
As opposed to Joe Biden, who thinks authoritarians are basically nice people who can be massaged into the right positions.
Here's Jon Meacham.
Again, this is all, it's such foolishness.
The most concerning part of that alliance is that Donald Trump considers himself to be close friends with every one of those tyrants.
That's not true.
That's the picture that we should all focus on right now.
Arguably the most important part of this unfolding political campaign is that the Republican nominee wants to be in that frame.
He wants to be walking through squares like that.
By his own admission, he admires that.
He admires the authoritarianism, he admires the toughness No, he just acknowledges what they are.
And he knows that you guys don't understand them, which is certainly true.
The reality is that the left, they've all become Jane Fonda.
It used to be, there was a time when the foreign policy establishment among Democrats was significantly tougher than it is today.
When people like Zell Miller or Scoop Jackson were Democrats.
And now it turns out the foreign policy establishment is basically Noam Chomsky and Jane Fonda inside the Democratic Party.
We'll get to more on this in a moment.
First, are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
This year, the IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and can cost you thousands of bucks.
In these challenging times, your best offense is Tax Network USA.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order ensuring that aggressive collection activities like garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted, providing you peace of mind and financial security.
If you haven't filed in a while and need amended returns or you're just missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all your filings, eliminating the risk of IRS enforcement.
Tax Network USA will evaluate your financials and create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt, putting it behind you for good.
Don't wait any longer.
Call our friends at Tax Network USA today.
For a complimentary consultation, call 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Shapiro.
That's 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Shapiro.
Today, 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Shapiro.
Here's Jane Fonda's explanation for why she won.
I love that Jane Fonda's on CNN.
I mean, again, from Hanoi, standing alongside anti-aircraft guns of the of the Viet Cong to CNN in just a few short
decades.
Here is Jane Fonda explaining that if Orange Man Bad wins next
November, it'll be worse for not for the world, not for not for
the United States, for the Palestinians.
If Orange Man Bad wins.
I think that that President Biden is trying to.
Protect Israel, be loyal to Israel, and at the same time demand a ceasefire, demand that the bombing stop, that the
children stop being killed.
I think he's doing both.
But I understand the anguish of the protesters.
I can't say that I know what he should do differently, because I don't understand the situation well enough.
Jane Fonda, we always appreciate speaking with you.
All I know is... Go ahead.
Well, just one other thing.
If the Orange Man wins next November, it's going to be much worse for Palestinians.
I can say that.
Well, at least you are making your priorities clear, Jane Fonda.
Already coming up, we are going to talk about Joe Biden's losing strategy.
Even members of his own party are now saying, dude, you got a problem.
We'll get to that in a moment.
If you're not a member, become a member.
Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
▲
Export Selection