The Ben Shapiro Show - OPEN BORDERS DEATH: Illegal Immigrant Truck Driver KILLS Three

Aug. 20, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:02:59

OPEN BORDERS DEATH: Illegal Immigrant Truck Driver KILLS Three

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	An illegal immigrant who had a California driver's license allegedly kills three people.
	The consequences for California governor Gavin Usum are actually quite serious.
	Plus, the latest on Ukraine and Russia.
	Will Vladimir Putin even come to the table?
	And we'll get to an insane episode of the YouTube show Jubilee involving a woman who has a hip hop degree going up against a black conservative.
	First, if you've been waiting for the right moment to join Daily Wear Plus, this would be it.
	We're giving you more than ever with your membership.
	And right now, you can get it all for 40% off.
	Use code summer at dailywear plus dot com.
	Also, well, folks, today is a day I thought I'd never see the number one piece of content on the Daily Wear Plus app is not a series for me.
	It is not one of Matt's hit films.
	It is somehow, some way, Michael Knowles' very first documentary series, The Pope and the Fuhrer, the Secret Vatican Files of World War II.
	If you're a Daily Wire Plus member, watch episodes one and two right now.
	If you're not a member, I have good news.
	You can get 40% off a new Daily Wire Plus annual membership with code summer.
	And congratulations to Michael Knowles.
	Enjoy while it lasts, dude.
	Well, since 2015, President Trump has become obviously very popular because of his stance on illegal immigration.
	He said the thing most people aren't willing to say, which is illegal immigrants should go home.
	They don't have a place in the country.
	And the left went nuts.
	They are still going nuts over the fact that the president of the United States has single-handedly shut the Southern.
	And this means that apparently he's bad and racist and all the rest.
	The thing is most Americans don't actually believe that.
	Most Americans look at things like illegal immigrant crime and they say, President Trump is right.
	Case in point according to the Department of Homeland Security today, Governor Gavin Newsom, the Democratic Governor of California, and his continued support for sanctuary policies are to blame for an illegal immigrant trucker who was given a driver's license in California killing three Americans after making an illegal U-turn this month.
	He was in Florida.
	He'd come in illegally in 2018.
	And then the state of California decided to give this person, this person's name is Harjinder Singh, an illegal alien from India, a driver's license.
	And he was driving a semi in St. Lucie County, Florida, and he made an illegal U-turn that left three Americans dead.
	Here is some video of the crash footage.
	You can see him here turning, it's just a gigantic U-turn.
	All the way across the road, breaking barrier, and you can see a car slams into the side of his truck.
	Three people die.
	So the governor of California is blamed.
	He immediately comes back and says it's the Trump administration.
	The problem, of course, is that he only had a commercial driver's license despite being a legal alien.
	Thanks to a law passed in 2013 and then expanded by Gavin Newsom in 2022.
	According to Breitbart, California officials had issued driver's licenses to more than illegal aliens since 2015.
	DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin blamed Gavin Newsom for supporting the state's sanctuary policies that ultimately led to Singh getting that driver's license and allegedly killing three Americans in Florida.
	Governor Newsom then claimed that actually the Trump administration was responsible for Singh securing that commercial driver's license in California.
	McLaughlin of the DHS wrote back, Harjinder Singh is in the United States illegally, and his work authorization was rejected under the Trump administration on September 14, 2020.
	It was later approved under the Biden administration, June 9, 2021.
	The state of California issues commercial driver's license.
	There is no national commercial driver's license.
	It turns out that the illegal immigrant trucker responsible allegedly for all this failed an English language proficiency test and also failed to accurately identify highway traffic signs according to the Department of Transportation.
	The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration launched an investigation into that deadly crash and during an interview with the dr driver, investigators administered an ELP assessment that is English language proficiency.
	Singh apparently failed that assessment and only provided correct responses to two of twelve verbal questions and accurately identified one of four highway traffic signs.
	Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said, quote, If states had followed the rules, this driver would never have been behind the wheel and three precious lives would still be with us.
	This crash was a preventable tragedy directly caused by reckless decisions and compounded by despicable failures.
	Non enforcement and radical immigration policies have turned the trucking industry into a lawless frontier, resulting in unqualified foreign drivers improperly acquiring licenses to operate 40-ton vehicles.
	And again, this is a gigantic failure of governments like the state of California, which have acted as a magnet to illegal immigrants.
	There are an enormous number of illegal immigrants living in the state of California.
	So I asked our sponsors over at Comet, how many illegal immigrants are in the United States?
	How many in California?
	How many illegal immigrants have California driver's licenses?
	According to Comet, the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the United States as of May 2025 is approximately 14.8 million, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
	Some organizations cite even higher numbers with estimates up to 18.6 million, but the 14.8 to 15.8 million range is most frequently referenced in government and research reports.
	There are not current precise figures for figures for California, but as of 2023, California was home to more than 10.6 million immigrants in total, that's documented and undocumented, accounting for about 22% of all immigrants in the United States.
	Previous authoritative estimates have placed California's undocumented immigrant population in the range of 2 million.
	2 million.
	As far as driver's licenses, California has, of course, since 2015 allowed illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.
	By 2023, the California Department of Motor Vehicles had issued nearly 1.2 million original AB60 driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants.
	That's crazy.
	So 1.2 million illegal immigrants are roaming around the United States with California driver's licenses.
	But this is part and parcel of a broader democratic policy that suggests that somehow illegal immigration is a positive good for the United States and you are inhumane or bad if you say that illegal immigrants should not be in the United States.
	And I think in essence, this comes down to a question that's increasingly being asked online.
	What ought an American to be?
	What is an American?
	Now, if you go all the way back to the founding, the definition of an American was, of course, a natural born citizen of the United States.
	There are real holes in the citizenship definition because it didn't include, for example, black slaves in the South.
	But the basic predicate for citizenship was that you were assimilating to the dominant culture of the United States and Anglo-American culture, that you abided by the applicable law in your state, that you were not a drain on the people around you.
	Like if you were going to come to the country, there were no governmental welfare systems that were designed for you to take advantage of.
	And so the history of the United States and successive waves of immigrants who were then assimilated into the dominant majority culture, those successive waves of immigrants could be welcomed because there was no facilitation of inability to speak English.
	There was no facilitation of inability or unwillingness to assimilate to the dominant adherence to law.
	My great great grandparents came to the United States in the early 20th century.
	They spoke Yiddish and they immediately stopped speaking Yiddish and their families stopped speaking Yiddish as fast as possible so that they could actually immerse in the American culture.
	And that was true for the Irish, it was true for the Germans, it was true for the Italians.
	It was true for many Hispanics.
	And then something changed.
	And what changed was a gigantic welfare system accompanied by a view of multiculturalism that suggested that not only ought you bring your home foods and some of your home traditions, but that your culture needs not in any way mesh or assimilate with dominant traditions of law, with dominant traditions of belief in things like freedom of speech or private property or the constitutional government of the United States.
	That essentially the United States was to be the repository of any who wished to come here, even if those people were just coming here to take advantage of the system itself.
	And what that means is lower rates of assimilation.
	What that means is that you have people who come here, don't speak English, can't read road signs, are immediately entered into the stream of commerce and then do things like this, commit crimes.
	And if you say no to this, if you say no, this is a problem.
	What you actually want is people coming to the United St States and becoming part of the American experiment by accepting the American experiment, by learning the language, by becoming part of the culture, by actually believing in the creed of the Declaration of Independence.
	If you say those things, then many members of the left will say that's wrong, that's bad, that's racist, because what you actually need are segmented populations that don't actually believe in the American experiment, that not just bring their food and their customs, but also reject the dominant customs and heritage and legal framework of the United States.
	And what that has led to is an identity politics on the left, and that has led to a concomitant rise of a new identity politics on the right, which says, okay, well, if we are going to do various ethnic clicks in a quote unquote multicultural country, then what we really ought to do is have a white ethnic clique in a dominant culture in the United States.
	And so the very basic idea of it, yes, in America, there is a dominant culture.
	Yes, in America, there's a dominant heritage of Anglo-American law.
	Yes, in America, there are dominant customs.
	And you're supposed to assimilate to those things.
	That very idea.
	has now been put aside by the entire left and increasingly parts of the right that say that if you insist on a segmented society, well, our segment.
	should be the dominant one.
	It shouldn't be your segment.
	As opposed to, here is the broader vision to which people actually can assimilate.
	And this is leading to all sorts of fractures within the American body politics.
	Obviously, it is caused by the left and its unwillingness and inability to accept the basic notion of law, the basic notion of assimilation and the basic idea that people who come here do have a duty to the country to assimilate and that they ought to do things like learn English and abide by the law.
	And that it is not, in fact, racist to say that people should not illegally immigrate here and then take advantage of the system.
	And yet the left continues to push.
	Here is Boston mayor Michelle Wu again just yesterday suggesting that her sanctuary city policy was an inherent good.
	Unlike the Trump administration, Boston follows the law.
	And Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.
	We will not back away from our community that has made us the safest major city in the country and a leading example of why cities around the country make this country safer, healthier and more prosperous for all Americans.
	I'm sorry, but sanctuary city policies do not make cities safer and more prosperous for all Americans.
	They don't.
	They involve violation of the law.
	They involve undercutting the wage base.
	They involve the violation of basic standards of adherence to the common customs and culture and law that make America actually function.
	And this is why the Trump administration is fighting back against this as well.
	They should already come up.
	We'll get to President Trump reactioning up pressure on Vladimir Putin over Ukraine plus an amazing debate on Jubilee in which a Columbia educated hip hop master's degree holder.
	just gets owned by a bunch of black conservatives first.
	Did you know your internet provider watches every move you online?
	They track all your clicks and the time spent online.
	They build a profile and then they sell that to the highest bidder, which sounds illegal and it should be, but it really isn't.
	Why?
	Well, because the government benefits as well.
	It creates a loophole around your fourth amendment rights.
	Normally, the government needs a warrant to collect your information without consent.
	Instead, they just buy it from the data brokers and now it's completely legal.
	No warrant required.
	Well, data brokers erode our freedoms as Americans.
	Well, there's a solution I use, ExpressVPN.
	With ExpressVPN, all my online activity travels through secure encrypted servers.
	Nobody, not even my internet provider, can track my movements or infringe on my rights.
	I use ExpressVPN legitimately all the time on the right.
	road.
	I'm using public Wi-Fi.
	I don't want any hackers or anybody just watching what I'm doing.
	That's why ExpressVPN is there for me.
	And now ExpressVPN has launched Identity Defender for US customers included at no extra cost.
	It removes your data from brokers files, monitors the dark web for your information, alerts you.
	If someone tries using your social security number right now, you can get an extra four months for free when you use my special link.
	Go to ExpressVPN dot com slash Ben, get four extra months of ExpressVPN.
	That's EXPR ESSVPN dot com slash Ben.
	Also, do you guys ever read protein bar labels and feel like you're reading off the ingredients to a candy bar?
	Most health bars are packed with a lot of unnecessary sugar and chemicals.
	My team and I, we've tried a bunch of different protein bars that either tasted like junk or left us hungry again within an hour.
	Luckily, we found Equip Foods Prime Bar.
	It's the first of its kind, a grass-fed beef protein bar with only real food ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide with twenty grams of clean protein.
	That's a lot of protein in a protein bar starting today.
	My listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Equip's Prime bar, which has become our team's favorite protein bar on the market with twenty grams of protein in every bar.
	Again, that's a lot of protein made with just eleven clean ingredients like collagen and colostrum.
	These bars deliver twenty grams of grass-fed beef protein without the bloating.
	They're free from way seed oils and artificial additives.
	Plus, they're naturally sweetened with dates and honey.
	So they smell like dessert without the guilt.
	Producer Justin has been eating these every day he's bulking up looking you know more manly of all the protein if you want to try the cleanest protein bar on the market that already sold out once go to equip foods dot com slash Ben Shapiro use code Ben Shapiro checkout to get 25% off one-time purchases or 40% off your first subscription order for a limited time.
	That's EQUIP foods dot com slash Ben Shapiro use code Ben Shapiro checkout.
	So yesterday, for example, it was revealed by Axios that citizenship reviews US customs and immigration services are now considering the positive attributes of immigrants seeking US citizenship rather than just the absence of misconduct.
	They're saying, listen, it's not enough for us to look at your record and say, okay, you didn't actually commit rape back in your home country.
	You have to show us why you ought to enter.
	Now again, in a culture that naturally did that, in a country that naturally did that, because there were no gigantic welfare nets, because there was no concept that multiculturalism was in and of itself a positive good, because the idea was you come here and you integrate.
	Because of that, you didn't need this, but now you absolutely do.
	According to Axios, good moral character is not a new requirement for naturalization, but under the USCIS memo, officers are instructed to put greater emphasis on an applicant's positive attributes and contributions.
	These can include factors like community involvement, family caregiving, and educational attainment.
	The memo says going forward, USCIS officers must account for an alien's positive attributes and not simply the absence of misconduct.
	In other words, you have to show us why you ought to be here.
	The memo also calls for heightened scrutiny of disqualifying behaviors.
	These include permanent bars to good moral character, like, of course, murder, aggravated felonies, genocide, and also other offenses like gambling and drug-related violations.
	But the memo also stipulates that other disqualifying actions could include behavior that is technically lawful, but is, quote, inconsistent with civic responsibility within the community, like, for example, habitual traffic infractions or solicitation, which, again, yes.
	We don't need people here who are constantly violating the law.
	That is a problem.
	The policy allows for the applicant to show genuine rehabilitation, like rectifying.
	overdue child support or past due taxes.
	Also, apparently, USCIS said that they had expanded the types of requests that will receive social media vetting, and that will include searches for anti-American activity.
	A Tuesday memo says USCIS considers the endorsement, support or promotion of the views of an anti-American or terrorist organization or group to be an overwhelmingly negative factor in USCIS discretionary analysis.
	Well, this apparently is making the left insane.
	Apparently, that is a serious problem.
	How dare you screen for anti-American ideology in determining whether people ought to come to the United States or not?
	Or not.
	The fact that it's taken so long for us to actually make this part of the law or for this to be applied is totally insane.
	Of course we should screen to see if people hate America, if they support terrorist groups, if they're Al Qaeda supporters, if they're big fans of Trend Aragua, then yes, they should not be allowed to enter the country.
	Why is this even remotely controversial?
	It's only remotely controversial because the left view of Americanism is if you make an end, you're an American, which is why they use idiotic terms like undocumented citizens as opposed to illegal immigrants.
	USCIS spokesman Matthew Tregessar in a press release said, quote, America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies.
	US Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible.
	This is obviously something that we should be doing.
	This should not be controversial in any way.
	And if the Democrats wish to take the minority position and say that anyone who wants to get in should get in, no matter what insanity they support ideologically, well, good luck to you, because I don't think most Americans believe that.
	I don't think even most Democrats believe that.
	That anyone who wants in should simply get in, because that doesn't just mean they're going to have people who shouldn't be here committing crimes as you saw in this horrible traffic accident.
	It means you'll have people here who undercut the very foundations of America, that common culture, that common legal jurisprudence, that common adherence to what it means to be an American that allows us to all live together in a society without fragmenting.
	By the way, one aspect of this should include the recognition that just because something is economically beneficial to the United States does not mean that people should get into the country.
	I'm a big free market capitalist, obviously.
	But when it comes to immigration, it can't just be that we let you in because you are quote unququote good for the economy.
	You have to show why you would be a good American citizen, why you belong here in the United States.
	Because any country with borders has to be more than just a place where random people come and go, leaving their cultural imprint on the society.
	This is why it is correct when Mike Gallagher says that Harvard should send home Chinese students.
	He is correct.
	Mike Gallagher, of course, the former congressman from Wisconsin and was chairman of the select committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
	He's now head of defense for Palantir.
	He says President Trump began his second term by picking a fight with an unaccountable leftist dictatorship that is hostile to American values, accustomed to taking advantage of American wealth and actively abetting genocide in Zhangzheng.
	I refer, of course, to Harvard.
	For decades, Republicans and Democrats agreed our universities were crowned jewels of American exceptionalism and Harvard shone brightest of all.
	Mr. Trump, however, has an uncanny knack for exposing rotten shibbolists and recent years have seen top universities unmasked as global far-left patronage networks using research as a smokescreen to prevent scrutiny of campus hate as they aid adversaries like China.
	Mr. Trump deserves credit for addressing the corrupt and immoral links between universities like Harvard and the Chinese Communist Party, but his recent deals with Columbia Brown and other schools don't go far enough.
	These settlements consist of impressive but ultimately immaterial fines and vague promises to abide by current law, but there is a better way.
	Drastically reduce the number of Chinese nationals enrolled in American universities, especially those studying technology.
	Roughly thirty percent of Harvard's student body is foreign.
	At Columbia, that share approaches forty percent.
	Our elite universities need a change of mindset.
	They should make priority of educating exceptional Americans and citizens of our partner nations, not our adversaries.
	Of course, because an enormous number of these Chinese students then go back to China and act in the interest of China.
	As Gallagher says, blindly embracing academic cooperation with a geopolitical rival is absurd.
	Nobody suggests we should train Iranian nuclear scientists or Russian ballistics engineers.
	The US wouldn't have been better off collaborating more with Nazi Germany in the 30s or with the Soviets during the Cold War.
	Why make an exception for a nation dedicated to surpassing the US in emerging technologies?
	Now, the reason, by the way, universities really like Chinese students is because they pay the full freight, right?
	Everybody else in the United States gets some sort of subsidized loan.
	That is not the case with these Chinese students, but that's the Communist Party paying for it.
	So Gallagher is right about all this.
	Why is all of this even remotely controversial?
	That remains a question for Democrats to answer.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile, speaking of foreign conflict.
	Negotiations continue over the end to the war in Ukraine.
	The United States and her allies, we are attempting to determine right now what kind of security guarantees would be necessary to secure Ukraine's future, even though Ukraine is being asked to give up some territorial concessions.
	And much of the territory that Ukraine is being asked to give up is some of its most fortified territory.
	So the security guarantees are going to have to be basically ironclad for Ukraine to sign on and for the Europeans to sign on, by the way.
	Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, President Trump signaled on Tuesday, the United States is prepared to use air power to support a European security force in Ukraine, but ruled out deploying American ground troops.
	Planning of the multination force to be sent to Ukraine if a peace settlement is reached accelerated on Tuesday, a day after President Trump discussed the idea at the White House with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and other European leaders.
	After Trump's summit with his Russian counterpart in Alaska, the president tasked Air Force General Dan Kane, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Razin Kane, to develop options for NATO-like security guarantees for that force, according to a Western official.
	Apparently, Kane was set to meet in person on Tuesday with military chiefs from nations that participated in the White House meeting in Ukraine a day earlier, including Britain, France, Germany, and Finland.
	And again, the goal was to refine military options for the political leaders.
	Now, none of these military options are going to involve American boots on the ground.
	That is something President Trump said yesterday on Fox News.
	Here he explained.
	What kind of assurances do you feel like you have that going forward and, you know, past this Trump administration, it won't be American boots on the ground defending that border?
	Well, you have my assurance.
	You know, I'm president and I'm just trying to stop people from being killed, Charlie.
	Look, they're losing from five to seven thousand people a week in that ridiculous war that should have never happened.
	So his claim that we're not going to put boots on the ground, that was backed up by Caroline Lovettett, who of course underscored this at the White House yesterday.
	The President has definitely stated US boots will not be on the ground in Ukraine, but we can certainly help in the coordination and perhaps provide other means of security guarantees to our European allies.
	The president understands security guarantees are crucially important to ensure a lasting peace, and he has directed his national security team to coordinate with our friends in Europe and also to continue to cooperate and discuss these matters with Ukraine and Russia as well.
	Now, President Trump, he says that his goal here is to actually, believe it or not, get to heaven, meaning he was asked what is his sort of drive to get this done.
	And I actually believe him here.
	He says that he just thinks it's a good thing to do.
	I want to end it.
	You know, we're not losing American lives.
	We're not losing American soldiers.
	We're losing Russian and Ukrainian, mostly soldiers, some people as missiles hit wrong points or get lobbed into cities like Kiev and towns.
	But, you know, when if I can save seven thousand people a week from being killed, I think that's pretty I want to try and get to heaven if possible.
	I'm hearing I'm not doing well.
	I'm really at the bottom of the totem pole.
	But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.
	We have a lot of sense of humor there that is some funny mary margaret who's our white house correspondent she asked caroline leavitt about president trump's spiritual motivations here i know the president said on fox news this morning that he's partially seeking peace in order to get to heaven was he joking or is there spiritual uh motivation behind his peace deals here i think the president was uh serious i think the president wants to get to heaven as i hope we all do in this room as well Already coming up.
	How's Russia going to respond to all of this?
	We have yet to find out.
	Plus, we'll get to an astonishing episode of Jubilee where a famous actress just gets owned by black conservatives first.
	I love movies about real heroes who have the courage to stand up against evil and protect people.
	We need those stories today.
	That's exactly why the incredible story told in Artist at War caught my attention.
	The film opens September 26.
	You can visit baomovie.com to see the trailers.
	Artist at War tells the remarkable true story of Joseph Bow, a gifted artist and forger who risked his life to save others during the Holocaust.
	There he found not only the strength to survive, but unexpected love with Rebecca.
	It's a gripping story of survival, love, and courage.
	It really is a powerful story.
	It's a really well-made movie.
	It's not just another Holocaust movie.
	It's really a movie about how art and love can save lives literally and spiritually.
	Joseph Bow was a prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp.
	He forged documents to help other people.
	He was also a poet and animator and a romantic.
	His story, his love, his resilience, it sounds like something fictional, but it actually happened.
	If you love Schindler's List or Jojo Rabbit films that show not just what was lost, but what was fought for, you need to see Bao Artist at War.
	Bao Artist at War opens only in theaters for a limited run beginning September 26.
	head over to baumovie.com to watch the trailer, read about Joseph's real life journey and find showtimes near you.
	Again, that's baumovie.com.
	That's baumovie.
	go check it out at theaters.
	It's definitely inspiring.
	Also, when we started Daily Wire, it felt like we had to figure everything out with not a lot of help.
	Editorial guidelines, studio setup, production schedule, branding.
	It was overwhelming.
	New decisions were necessary every day.
	Finding one tool that simplifies everything when starting a business becomes a game changer and a life saver for millions of businesses.
	That tool is Shopify.
	Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and ten percent of all e commerce in the United States.
	We even use it for our own daily wear shop to make sure things are running smoothly and efficiently so you can all get the goods.
	You might be asking, what if I can't design a website or I'm worried people haven't heard of my brand.
	Not a problem.
	Shopify's got you covered from the start with beautiful ready to go templates that match your brand style and help you find your customers through easy to run e-mail and social media campaigns.
	And if you need a hand with everyday tasks, their AI tools created specifically for commerce can help improve product images.
	Images, right descriptions and more.
	Plus, their award winning customer support is available 24/7 to share advice.
	If you ever get stuck, turn those dreams into and give them the best chance of success with Shopify.
	Register for your one dollar per month trial.
	Start selling today at shopify dot com slash shapiro.
	That's shopify dot com slash shapiro shopify dot com slash shapiro.
	Meanwhile, the question becomes whether Russia is actually serious about anything of this.
	Obviously, the downside of negotiations that it allows Russia to continue to push forward militarily.
	According to the New York Post, Vladimir Putin ordered the largest drone strike on Ukraine in a month on Monday night, just as he hung up the phone with President Trump in a call discussing next steps for peace as Trump celebrated.
	his significant progress towards ending Russia's war on Ukraine, in White House meetings with Vladimir Zelensky and European leaders, Moscow launched 270 drones and 10 missiles into the war torn neighbor's territory.
	It came after at least 14 civilians were killed and more than 50 others were injured in a similar Russian strike ahead of the Monday meeting.
	Among the dead was an entire family, including two kids, one aged 1 and 15.
	Their parents and grandmother, according to the Ukrainian government, they were at home in Kharkiv, which is roughly 15 miles from the Russian border in the middle of the night when the fatal blast happened.
	And of course, Russia has been firing drones and missiles.
	at Kiev for months.
	When we were in Kiev having an interview with Vladimir Zelensky, the night that we went in, there was a drone alert.
	The night after we left was the biggest.
	attack of the war.
	So Russia has really been uping the ante.
	And the question is going to be, how far is the West willing to be pushed?
	Is there a real offramp here?
	Does Putin actually want anything?
	And that remains the biggest open question here.
	It is not what Zelenskyy wants.
	We know what Zelenskyy wants.
	He just wants the war to end without giving up enormous swaths of territory and without guaranteeing a future Russian invasion.
	The question is what Putin is willing to accept.
	And right now, it appears the answer is not much.
	Now Vladimir Putin may be stringing along the United States and the West.
	And if that's the case, then what comes next is the question.
	As the Wall Street Journal points out, if Putin agrees to meet with Vladimir Zelenskyy, he will come face to face with the man he has spent three and a half years excorating as an illegitimate leader and puppet.
	Negotiating directly with Zelenskyy would run sharply counter to the narrative Putin has carefully constructed and sold to Russians in an effort to justify his 2022 invasion of Ukraine that the war is part of a broader conflict with the West in which Zelenskyy and his country are mere pawns.
	Trump's call for a meeting puts Putin in a bind.
	If he declines, he risks angering President Trump.
	Sitting down with Zelenskyy could damage him politically with the Russian elite and the broader public.
	So, you know, again, does Putin actually want anything here?
	The early signs are no.
	According to Politico, Moscow moved on Tuesday to cool expectations of a long-awaited face-to-face summit between Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and Russia's Vladimir Putin despite much excitement following President Trump's White House meetings with top European leaders on Monday.
	During an interview with state controlled TV channel Russia 24 on Tuesday, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow does not refuse talks with Ukraine, but crucially insisted any summit would have to be prepared step by step gradually starting from the expert level and then going through all the necessary steps.
	So in other words, it sounds very much like the Russian government is stringing along the West.
	Now President Trump has put Putin directly on the spot.
	He placed a call directly to the Kremlin while the European leaders and Zelensky were still in the White House.
	President Trump said I think he wants to make a deal, but the Russians said.
	said that no, no, no, no.
	So Kremlin assistant Yuri Ushakov said, quote, President Putin and Trump discussed the idea of raising the level of direct Russian Ukrainian negotiations, adding that both spoke in favor of continuing direct negotiations between the delegations of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
	Zelenskyy, of course, is trying to make clear to the president and to the rest of the West that Putin has no intention of actually meeting.
	So he's saying, listen, I'll meet you.
	Sure.
	I'm not going to meet you in Moscow where you're probably going to kill me, but I'm happy to meet you pretty much anywhere else.
	And meanwhile, Putin, who has already avoided a meeting with Zelenskyy in Turkey, continues to stall.
	So what happens if Vladimir Putin does not actually come to the table?
	The answer presumably will be more sanctions.
	That is something that is already being discussed by the Trump administration.
	Now, are sanctions alone going to be able to do the job?
	I don't think the answer here is yes.
	Economic sanctions have become sort of the all purpose tool of artificial war for the last several decades.
	There's a great book that came out recently called Choke Point that really talks up the effect of these sorts of sanctions.
	It's called American power in the age of economic warfare by Edward Fishman.
	The problem, of course, is that alternative pathways of economics have been created.
	So the sanctions on Russia have weakened its economy, but it has forged new ties with India.
	It has forged new ties with China.
	There's still a lot of places in Europe that are buying Europe is buying more Russian oil in terms of billions of euros than it is actually taking out of the Russian economy via sanctions.
	So they're still subsidizing the very people who are fighting Ukraine.
	The truth is what the United States really should do if they want to fight the economic war is they should make a deal with Europe that actively ships much more LNG from the United States to Europe, gets Europe weaned off of Russia's LNG and oil.
	And that cuts off an enormous amount of commerce with the Russians.
	That's something the United States should be doing would also, by the way, benefit our domestic oil industry, our fracking industry and all the rest, if you're talking in terms of economics.
	But it turns out that economic sanctions don't generally achieve what they seek to achieve.
	They don't do enough.
	They weaken the country, but not so much that it falls.
	It is extremely rare in world history for economic sanctions, unaccompanied by a sort of military blockade, to actually effectuate what they seek to effectuate.
	That goes, goes all the way back to Napoleon's continental system and the British attempting to blockade Napoleon, not supremely successful.
	Right.
	So what in the end, what the United States will have to do, if the United States wishes for Vladimir Putin to stop, is up the antimilitarily.
	And that means giving newer, better weapons to the Ukrainians to allow them to fight.
	With that said, sanctions are the first step toward that.
	Scott Besson, the Treasury Secretary, he says the President Trump had Putin on his heels in Alaska, which is certainly partially true.
	Now, I don't know if it's totally true because we don't know what Putin's going to do yet, but certainly he backfooted Vladimir Putin by essentially saying, get in a room with Zelensky.
	And now Putin is kind of stuck a little bit.
	President Trump had a great meeting with President Putin.
	My take was he had President Putin on his heels for most of the event after the flyover.
	And then yesterday, a fantastic meeting with Zelensky, then with the Europeans, and then back in the Oval, he had a call with.
	President Putin, and I'm very optimistic they'll be able to have a bilateral meeting.
	So we'll see if that in fact comes to fruition.
	Meanwhile, Scott Bessens is saying it's unacceptable that India is purchasing oil from Russia.
	Now, again, it seems to me that if we are going to put sanctions on anybody for the purchase of Russian oil, it should really be China.
	India is a country we should be trying to woo, and we really need not just use sticks with India.
	We need to use carrots because India is going to be a geopolitical powerhouse for the foreseeable future.
	They have the world's largest population at this point.
	They are a nuclear armed country.
	They're economically developing very quickly, and they could be very pro-America.
	In fact, the relationship between Trump and Modi in India was actually quite warm until some of these sanctions went into place.
	But here's Bessant ripping on India.
	If you go back and look now, I believe India had less than 1% of their oil, 1%, and now I believe it's up to 42.
	So India is just profiteering.
	They are just profiteering.
	They are reselling.
	They've made $16 billion in excess profits, some of the richest families in India.
	So this is a completely different thing.
	This India, what I would call.
	call the Indian arbitrage, buying cheap Russian oil, reselling it as product, has just sprung up during the war, which is unacceptable.
	Okay.
	I mean, that's fine.
	But if we are going to take that perspective, then we certainly should be taking that perspective with China as well.
	I will note that the Trump administration has now decided to go on TikTok as opposed to doing what they are supposed to do statutorily, which is, you know, ban TikTok, which absolutely should be forced to the mat.
	TikTok is a Chinese op.
	It has always been a Chinese op.
	And the idea that the administration continues to sort of forestall the use of its legislative tools in order to ban TikTok and instead is now engaging with TikTok while simultaneously going going after India, I don't really understand that very much.
	With all that said, the left-wing charge that President Trump is somehow bending over backward for Putin is false.
	CNN's Aaron Burnett was trying to retell that line yesterday.
	A warmth and decent feeling.
	I mean, it is almost it's almost as if he's writing some sort of late night Do those still exist scripts?
	I mean, this is Putin that Trump is talking about, the same dictator who invades other countries, jails and assassinates his rivals, poisons them, poisons anyone in the opposition, engages in mass murder of civilians.
	This is the same person that the world has seen in action for decades.
	And yet Trump is bending over backward right now for Putin.
	I don't understand what she means by bending over backwards.
	By bending over backwards, does she mean that Trump is actually now offering security guarantees he wasn't offering before?
	Because that doesn't seem like that very much.
	I will say that the absolute radical disconnect between our left wing media and reality, it's astonishing.
	So Chuck Todd was on CNN and he was lamenting that President Trump sees the world as the rule of the jungle.
	Welcome to reality where geopolitics is the rule of the jungle, always has been the rule of the jungle.
	The lie that there is some sort of international law to which everyone is answerable is a bunch of bull.
	Everybody who engages in international politics except for idiots on CNN knows this.
	Everyone knows this.
	If the United States were not there to back everybody's play, there would be no international law.
	It is the rule of the bully in geopolitics that is you just hope the bully is on the right side.
	And here's Chuck Todd sort of lamenting Trump.
	Trump, as I've said a thousand times, lives in the world of reality.
	The reality is that bullies run the world.
	You just hope that the bully is the United States and not China.
	Look, this is a worldview issue, right?
	Donald Trump believes in the rules of the jungle.
	The bigger are in charge, the smaller have to, even if you're, even if you have the moral ground, doesn't matter.
	You don't have the strength here.
	So this is a case where I think this is why some people, while we all may, people may have mistaken his support of Russia in some sort of nefarious way when it's he just views it as well Russia and China are the big people and we have to deal with them differently than you do the others which doesn't sit well with people that believe in constitutional republics that's ridiculous that's ridiculous I believe in a constitutional republic I like constitutional republics I think that China and Russia are enemies not just our geopolitical opponents are enemies and and
	I also understand that geopolitics doesn't work the way that you wish that it worked in which everybody gets in a room and they're all friendly to one another and there are agreed rules of the game.
	That is not how any of this works at all, at all.
	Ridiculously enough.
	enough that the person who understands this apparently is Stephen A. Smith, just Stephen A. With whom I will say that we've had friendly talks in the past publicly.
	He says that it's Democrats in office that caused this.
	He ain't wrong.
	We ain't going to act like he caused this now.
	It's Democrats in office.
	It was Biden in office when a full-fledged war against Ukraine took place courtesy of Russia's instigation, no matter what they try to say to Trump.
	It was Russia that invaded Crimea and that was under the Obama administration.
	It was Clinton in office when you made a deal that disarmed the ukraine and therefore weakened them leaving them dependent on the united states and now here they are having to beg for support that they're old because of what we promised them as a nation we promised them this i mean he is not totally wrong he's not totally wrong Already coming up, the United States looks like it might be a military face-off with Venezuela.
	We'll get into what's going on there.
	First, feeling overwhelmed by back taxes.
	You're not alone.
	Maybe you missed that April deadline or your financial records are all over the place.
	Whatever the situation, don't put it off any longer.
	The IRS is not getting any getting any friendlier.
	Those penalties they pile up fast.
	We're talking five percent every month you don't file, max out at 25 percent.
	That adds up quickly.
	Here's the thing.
	You don't have to handle this alone.
	Tax Network USA specializes in exactly these situations.
	They've worked with thousands of Americans employees, small business owners, people who haven't filed in years, messy books.
	They've literally seen it all.
	They know how to sort it out.
	What sets them apart is their direct access to IRS programs that most people don't even know exist.
	Plus, they have expert negotiators who actually know how to get results.
	They'll start with a free consultation to assess your situation.
	If you qualify, they may be able to reduce or even eliminate what you owe.
	More importantly, they can protect you from the really scary stuff like wage garnishments and bank levies.
	Bottom line, don't wait for that next IRS letter to show up in your mailbox.
	The sooner you act, the more options you will have.
	Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash shapiro to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA.
	Take the pressure off.
	Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.
	Joining us online is Senator Eric Schmidt, sixth generation Missourian and currently represents the people of Missouri in the United States Senate.
	He's a member of the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Joint Economic Committee.
	He has a brand new book outtitled The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left in Court.
	Senator Schmidt, thanks so much for the time.
	Really appreciate it.
	It's great to be with you, Ben.
	So let's talk about.
	the law fair that is currently being waged on the Trump administration, the law fair that the left has used so successfully over the course of the last decade and a half, several decades actually, in order to promote their agenda.
	What are they doing and how can we fight that?
	Well, I think first of all, we have to understand the terrain that we're dealing with, right?
	I think for a long time conservatives thought that that was what democrats did and you had this nonsense about a living constitution and we seeded a lot of ground.
	And part of the reason why I wrote the book, The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left in Court is when I was Attorney General in Missouri, the job I had before this, we were successful, right?
	We saw the vaccine mandate.
	We took that to the Supreme Court.
	We won.
	We won on the student loan debt forgiveness scam.
	I brought the Missouri v.
	Biden censorship case, right?
	Where we exposed this vast censorship enterprise even before Elon Musk had bought Twitter.
	So there's a lot of lessons learned, but as it relates to right now, we've got to stand up and we've got to fight.
	And what you're seeing is, I think, a different mentality.
	One of the great gifts President Trump has given, I think, to conservatives is this willingness and confidence to fight back.
	And actually, the Solicitor General of the United States, John Sauer, was my Solicitor General in Missouri, and he's winning a lot of these big cases as they make their way up.
	I think a lot of people will see a district court decision here or there in some jurisdiction.
	But as they make their way up, by and large, President Trump has been successful in defending his ability to control personnel, programming and deportations.
	That's been kind of the center of the ring.
	So they've been successful.
	And also, if you remember, the Supreme Court just a couple of months ago knocked down this nationwide injunction nonsense that had kind of riddled the courts too.
	So I think we're fighting back and winning, but it's an ongoing fight.
	There's no doubt about that.
	So, you know, speaking of that ongoing fight, obviously one of the big cases that was filed in Missouri originally filed as Missouri versus Biden involved the First Amendment, the federal government and and its impact on social media, essentially pressure that was brought to bear by the Biden administration on social media.
	And the Supreme Court basically refused to take up the case.
	Were there any lessons learned from that?
	What is the best way to approach these cases so that in the future, you know, those are actually cases that we can win at the Supreme Court level.
	Yeah, what they kind of did is they punted on it.
	I disagreed with it.
	They said there wasn't standing.
	They sent it back to the lower court.
	But, you know, the district court level and even the appellate court level, those judges, I mean, not my words, their words saying that this was the biggest violation of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.
	But what you because we took the deposition of Anthony Fauci and we laid that out in the book.
	We took the deposition of Elvis Chan, who was the FBI agent who was prebunking the Hunter Biden laptop story with big tech companies, even though they knew it was real.
	Brian Scully, who's that guy, when he was at CISA, they were in this too.
	So you had this leviathan of government agencies really weaponized against conservatives to censor speech.
	So it could have been the laptop.
	It was also about COVID and whether or not vaccines were effective or masks were effective.
	And so I think the lesson there is when we got the discovery, which was a big key strategic decision, we saw discovery before the injunction.
	The judge granted it.
	That's how we got to take the depositions and see the documents and the emails.
	There are secret portals that existed.
	I just think the expanse of this bin was shocking.
	And we have to fight.
	We have to not only uncover it, but we have to do things like if you're going to be a big tech company like that and you have protections as a platform, Section 230 protections, you got to actually be a platform.
	You got to support that.
	You can't be a publisher making editorial decisions throttling some people and not others.
	So I think there's some things for us to do, but there's a lot of lessons learned there.
	But uncovering, I think, this censorship enterprise was a big win.
	And this was before Elon Musk had even bought Twitter.
	Yeah, Senator Schmidt, one of the things that's been happening that I think is really salutary from the Trump administration is the focus on restaffing the administrative state.
	So obviously much of what you talk about in the book is challenges to the administrative state on the judicial level.
	But the reality is that unless the administrative state is completely redone, unless it's completely restaffed, things can go the other way.
	I mean, court composition can change.
	You could have a democratic president who decides to.
	to replace a conservative justice with a very liberal justice.
	And suddenly the power of the courts could be on the other shoe.
	So what exactly should conservatives be doing on the nonjudicial level in order to ensure victory in the future?
	Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.
	We have a chapter in the book, Last Line of Defense, dedicated to this.
	It really the progressive era, think of Woodrow Wilson, perhaps the worst president we've ever had.
	And that's saying a lot concerning what we've seen the last decade or so with Biden and Obama.
	But kind of began this administrative state, this sort of the rule of the experts, which is really antithetical to the mission of our country, which was about self government and about accountability, where you can send someone to Washington, you can send them home or you can send them to home or you can send them back.
	These bureaucrats are not accountable to anyone, Ben.
	You don't know who the deputy undersecretary of some agency is that wrote a guidance letter that destroyed your family farm.
	And so it's, you're right.
	It's not about changing personnel.
	It's about dismantling this.
	So I think one of the things that's really encouraging about the Trump administration, he put together a team of disruptors that are doing that.
	And so a lot of the legal fights you're seeing right now, the left in their law fair to subvert the will of the people, they're trying to get back to a place where these unelected folks have a lot of authority they never were supposed to have.
	Think of USAID, right?
	So I handled the resisions package in the Senate., we were able to pull back billions and billions of that.
	But I think ultimately having something like the Reigns Act to be specific, which is if there's going to be an agency that submits some rule that has an economic impact of X pick the number, Congress should have to approve it before it actually comes into effect.
	And that way, people know, did Eric Schmidt vote on this one way or another, and they can hold you accountable.
	Right now, the administrative state is not accountable.
	We need structural reform.
	Right now, obviously, the House, Senate and the presidency here are held by Republicans.
	And so that means a sort of more loosey goosey relationship between Congress and the President of the United States.
	But in the future, as different parties get elected, do you think it's important to restore the sort of balance of power between Congress and the executive branch because it does seem that over the course of the past several decades, the expansion of the prerogative of the executive branch has been dramatic and Congress has abdicated many of its duties in checking that sort of expansion.
	That's right because Congress has played a role in this too, Ben, which is a lot of congressmen and women will say, look, I voted for the greatest bill in the world, but I can't believe what the EPA did.
	We've got to get away from that because it just shifts responsibility to people that can never be held accountable.
	So yes, reasserting the authority of the Article I branch in the rulemaking that effectively has the consequence of law, we've got to rein that back in.
	There are core Article II powers, which again, why President Trump, I think, has largely been successful because he's the only he's the only person elected by the entire country to control the executive branch.
	But from a legislative perspective, how it affects people's lives, the decisions that we make, we need to pull as much of that back into the Article 1 branch.
	Actually, after the Chevron decision, there is an opening for that because what the Supreme Court said just a year ago or so, like, look, we're not going to like just give deference to the so called experts.
	We're going to judge on what the law is.
	So I think Congress needs to tighten up the language and do some things there to, again, sort of reign in that authority.
	Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri, his new book is The Last Line of Defense, How to Beat the Left in Crisis.
	the left in court just out a couple of days ago.
	Senator Schmidt, thanks so much for your book and thanks so much for your hard work.
	Thanks, Ben.
	Thanks for all you do.
	Meanwhile, the president of the United States is now unleashing some gunships to international waters to stop Venezuela.
	from shipping drugs to the United States.
	According to Fox News, U.S. military has sent destroyers and thousands of Marines toward Venezuela as President Trump doubles down on deadly drug cartels.
	According to reports, at least three Aegis-guided missile destroyers, USS Gravely and USS Jason Dunham among them, are part of the mission, according to two U.S. officials who are talking to the Associated Press.
	Another official told Reuters that deployment, which could arrive soon, involves around 4,000 Marines and soldiers over the course of several months backed by spy planes, warships and a submarine so that international waters and skies are covered.
	Venezuela has, in response, mobilized something like 4.5 million people on the ground.
	They seem to be afraid that Maduro is going to be assassinated.
	He apparently has banned all sales of all drones because he's concerned that someone is going to launch a drone that kills him.
	So Venezuela is quite paranoid that things are about to radically change.
	In a televised address on Monday, Maduro vowed Venezuela would defend our seas, our skies and our land and righted US pressure as the outlandish bizarre threat of a declining empire.
	Now again, there's really nothing nothing new about us deploying boats near Venezuela in order to prevent them from shipping drugs toward the United States.
	In February, President Trump designated drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and imposed sweeping sanctions on Maduro.
	So it'll be interesting to see how all of this plays out clearly.
	Caroline Levitt over at the White House, she said, listen, the Maduro regime is a narcoterror cartel, which is true.
	President Trump has been very clear and consistent.
	He's prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.
	The Maduro regime is not the legitimate government of Venezuela.
	It is a narco-terror cartel.
	And Maduro, it is the view of this administration, is not a legitimate president.
	He is a fugitive head of this cartel who has been indicted in the United States for trafficking drugs into the country.
	So that doesn't mean that the United States is now going to engage in a boot on the ground attempt to overthrow Maduro.
	What it does mean is that trying to box him in is a good move.
	By the way, it just shows the evils of dictatorship that Maduro is still in power because Bolivia has said enough.
	Apparently the pink tide, which is what we've actually been talking about on the show for several years, which is the upswing in socialist sentiment in Latin America is now receding.
	It's receding in large part due to the leadership of people like Javier Mille in Argentina, as well as the leadership.
	There's some other conservative leaders, by the way, in South America as well.
	The president of Paraguay, for example, his name is Santiago Peña.
	He is conservative.
	Obviously, El Salvador has turned toward the right.
	According to the Wall Street Journal in Bolivia, which had moved radically to the left, now socialism has been rejected.
	Sunday's Bolivian presidential election rejected the movement toward socialism party.
	It finished at a distance six with three percent of the vote.
	Originally, he was elected in 2005, Evo Morales, who was the socialist strongman in 2005 with 53 percent of the vote and then he proceeded to nationalize nearly everything and destroy the economy and for two decades they basically were in power and then on Sunday voters said they had enough no candidate won a majority the top two finishers go to a runoff in October Rodrigo Paz a centrist Christian Democrat got under 32 percent of the vote and he'll face former president Jorge Quiroga a conservative who came away with 27 percent of the vote so again one of the evils of Venezuela not
	having any electoral democracy is the fact that you can't get rid of these smacks and that's a major problem for the people of Venezuela that doesn't mean the United States will take an active role in toppling Maduro but it would certainly be good for the world if Maduro were no longer in charge of Venezuela and meanwhile, the President of the United States continues his quest to rid Washington, DC, of violent crime.
	According to the Washington Post, President Trump's crusade against crime in the nation's capital has resulted in more than 450 arrests since August 7.
	The White House announced on Tuesday morning.
	These run the gamut of charges from murder and assault to driving under influence.
	And of course, the left is catterwalling about this.
	Still.
	However, there's no doubt that bringing crime under control in DC is a worthwhile goal.
	Not only that, the DOJ is now investigating whether the DC police manipulated data to make crime rates appear lower.
	This has been a major issue in places like New York and LA for a very long time.
	The reclassification of crime from a felony to a misdemeanor or from a misdemeanor to nothing in order to pretend that crime is actually going down.
	And the criminal probe is going to be run out of the DC Federal Prosecutor's Office led by US Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
	It's expected to examine the actions of multiple police officials.
	According to three people familiar with the investigation, President Trump wrote on social media Monday night, DC gave fake crime numbers in order to create a false illusion of safety is a very bad and dangerous thing to do.
	They're under serious investigation for doing so.
	Until four days ago, Washington, DC was the most unsafe city in the United States, perhaps the world.
	Now in just a short period of time, it's perhaps the safest and getting better every single hour.
	Now, the usual superlatives there from President Trump.
	However, he is right that much of the data has been manipulated here and lower end crime is something that the federal government has the capacity to do in Washington, DC.
	Meanwhile, the Trump administration reorienting itself with regard to America's universities.
	We've talked obviously a lot about President Trump pressuring America's universities to move away from their not only pathological racial discrimination, but also from their pathological leftism.
	Apparently, President Trump is pushing for major payments from a lot of these universities.
	The deal that he cut with Columbia University and a potential settlement.
	involves apparently $200 million that would pass from Columbia University to the United States government.
	According to the New York Times, critics have likened Mr. Trump's methods to extortion.
	The White House has said the goal of extracting money from universities is to enhance trade schools, apprenticeships, and other real-world training.
	Now, again, I'm totally fine with the federal government fining all of these universities for their violation of law.
	What would be better is if these universities would change their procedures and their focus because let's just say our universities are not doing a very good job.
	Here, for example, is a professor at the University of California.
	Her name is Halle Froelich, who just recently suggested that she is fleeing the United States and she's starting a TikTok because she needs to study climate science elsewhere.
	These are the kinds of people that are being churned out and hired by our universities.
	I'm an associate professor at the University of California institution and I'm starting a TikTok because I'm going to flee the United States with my family to start a life.
	and do my science, study climate change and sustainable seafood, do it somewhere else.
	So, I don't know, I'm going to talk about my science, of course but really the adventures of the highs lows ups and downs of what this is going to look like because i'm leaving this image for something better um soy de channel wants her glasses and haircut back i'm not sure why um why we have the meaningful piano music in the background from this lady,
	but these are the kinds of people who our universities are turning out by the hundreds and by the thousands.
	They're also turning out people like apparently the actress.
	I guess that's who this person is named Amanda Seals.
	So Amanda Seals, who honestly, I was really not all that aware of.
	She was also one of the co-hosts of the syndicated daytime talk show The Real.
	Now, when I say that higher education turns out folks like Amanda Seals, I mean she graduated from SUNY Purchase and got a master's degree in African American studies with a concentration in hip hop from Columbia University.
	Hard to think of a more useless degree than that, but somehow she has parlayed that into fame and fortune.
	At least it hasn't hurt her.
	It didn't educate her much because she really doesn't know much.
	So she was on Jubilee.
	Jubilee is kind of this fun YouTube channel.
	I've done it before where you sit there and then you're surrounded by a bunch of people who disagree with you and they run in they disagree with you.
	You have these kind of little short debates.
	Some of them are fun.
	Some of them are dumb.
	Some of them are ridiculous.
	But she did not acquit herself well.
	She went up against a young man named Matt Nuclear who was talking about reparations and she clearly does not know what she is talking about.
	You can give everyone here like a $50,000 check, especially people that are in the streets who are committing violent crimes consistently, a $50,000 check.
	It's not going to fix anything.
	It's not going to increase the median household income in the next ten years by ten percent or twenty percent.
	For example, we have the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
	We prevented Chinese people from getting citizenship and even entering the country, we discriminate against them and basically put them under apartheid, even here in the United States.
	Yet they have the highest median household income.
	How is that possible?
	How come they don't complain and feel entitled consistently to beg for reparations and beg for this when they are killing each other ninety percent of the time, which is the rate that black people kill each other according to the FBI.
	Oh, young Matt.
	Yet white people are the oppressors.
	I'm not sure where your education came from, but they lied to you.
	Stats don't lie though.
	Statistics lie all the time.
	So let's start there.
	Particularly when the statistics are coming from the sources that gain from the statistics being shown in a different way.
	So if you're going to start your argument on stat stats don't lie.
	You've already lost the argument.
	They lie.
	They lie all the time.
	Well, I mean, if you start from the argument that facts do lie, you can't even have a discussion, right?
	If the argument is that all data are skewed, then you're just going to yell at each other because other, how do you even have a common basis in fact to have a discussion?
	This is what she learned with her hip hop degree from Columbia University.
	Very, very, by the way, just comments on the outfit.
	What happens to the rest of her shirt?
	She has a collar, but I'm not sure what happened to her shirt.
	Very weird.
	The cleaners did a bad job here.
	In any case, she then continued with this young man.
	And the question was, is there systemic racism against black?
	She's talking about racism against black people.
	And again, she just gets owned because she doesn't know what she's talking about.
	Comparing Chinese people who are immigrants that made a choice to come to the United States and comparing the continued effort of black people to ground themselves in a nation that continues to make impediments for them to show and live and exist in their true citizenship is a false equivalency.
	I don't believe that happens at all.
	What, what, no one here is in.
	Are you acting right now?
	Do you believe?
	I'm telling the truth.
	There's no, there's no systemic racism that I've experienced here in America.
	What system is racist?
	I think the only racism that we've actually seen recently, systemic racism that we've seen, is the application of systemic racism against white people.
	The University of Western Washington, for example, has been trying to segregate dormitories using black only dormitories because black people feel safer amongst each other, but they're more likely to kill each other than white people ever are ever to kill them.
	That's just the truth.
	You have King Von rapping about killing other black men.
	Why should I think that the white man is the oppressor when black men are more likely to kill me?
	Oh my God, this is scary.
	You need to think about me as your mama.
	Do not talk to me in that fashion.
	So let's check that now.
	Okay, so literally no response, just bizarre buzzwords in some way.
	This is what our universities are turning out.
	This is why President Trump is right to go after them..
	The fact that somebody got a subsidized education to get an African American studies degree at Columbia University, masters with a with a specialty in hip hop.
	Clearly that has not made anybody particularly smarter.
	Well, what Oklahoma is doing to stop all of this is apparently they're going to test incoming teachers with an America First exam, which I think is just wonderful actually.
	Apparently, according to the Washington Post, teachers from New York and California who apply to teach in Oklahoma will now have to answer questions meant to screen out woke indoctrinators with left-wing views.
	The latest attempt by Oklahoma officials to push the state's education system rightward.
	The test 50 questions will cover topics about the United States government, religion, and gender.
	According to examples shared by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, teachers' unions have criticized the moves as a political stunt.
	It will discourage applicants as Oklahoma faces a teacher shortage.
	Okay, well, I think that's the goal, is to discourage left-wing applicants.
	So apparently Prager University, which of course we have worked closely with, they're great, developed the exam.
	Apparently, the requirement went into effect over the summer.
	The test is currently being finalized.
	So some of the questions are things like what are the first three words of the const choices is in God we trust, which is four words.
	Why is freedom of religion important to America's identity?
	And then the possible answers are it makes Christianity the national religion.
	It bans all forms of public worship.
	It limits religious teaching in public life.
	It protects religious choice from government control, right?
	Like if you can't get these questions, like these are basic factual questions.
	If you don't get these questions right, you really shouldn't be teaching kids.
	It's like, what are the two parts of U.S. Congress?
	How many U.S. senators are there?
	Why do some states have more representatives than others?
	Right?
	These are very basic questions and treating this as some sort of obscene attempt to prevent great blue state teachers from teaching.
	That's just a lie and really, really silly.
	And meanwhile, controversy has broken out over President Trump's attempt to rewrite some of the exhibits over at the Smithsonian.
	Now, remember, the Smithsonian is incredibly left-winging.
	We've talked about some of their exhibits before, including exhibits that suggested that it was a part of white culture to be on time and prompt, for example, or to believe that you should pull yourself up by your own bootstraps if you can.
	Like, those things are white culture things.
	So President Trump put out a statement yesterday that Twitter got very angry at.
	He said the museums throughout Washington, but all over the country are essentially the last remaining segment of woke.
	The Smithsonian is out of control where everything discusses how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.
	Nothing about success, nothing about brightness, nothing about the future.
	We are not going to allow this to happen.
	I've instructed my attorneys to go through the museums and start the exact same process that has been done with colleges and universities where tremendous progress has been made.
	This country cannot be woke because woke is broke.
	We have the hottest country in the world and we want people to talk about it, including in our museums.
	Okay.
	So the thing people are picking out in this statement is where he says how bad slavery was.
	President Trump is not saying that slavery was good or it was okay or not that bad.
	What he is saying is everything discussed, right?
	Read the whole sentence, everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was.
	He's saying, yeah, we should discuss how bad slavery was, but in the context of a broader American story, including the fact that, for example, America expended hundreds of thousands of lives ending slavery.
	The story of America is complex.
	It has really, really dark areas, obviously.
	But overall, the story of America is an incredibly good story for the world and for the nation, obviously.
	And that's the point that President Trump is making.
	People on the left, of course, are jumping over him for this, suggesting, oh, it's just terrible.
	Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian, said, it's the epitome of dumbness to criticize the Smithsonian for dealing with the reality of slavery in America.
	It's what led to our civil war and is a defining aspect of our national history.
	And the Smithsonian deals in a robust way with what slavery was, but it also deals with human rights and civil rights in equal abundance.
	Now, again, I really do not think that that is what President Trump is trying to do.
	He's not wiping out the slavery exhibits at the Smithsonian, obviously.
	But the goal here is, as always, for the left to lie about this sort of stuff and suggest that if you wish to teach American history in a complex, shaded way that upholds the essential goodness of America, then this somehow makes you a racist, somehow makes you terrible in some unspecified way.
	Alrighty folks, coming up, we'll get to some shocking information about who exactly is funding public broadcasters.
	I guess it's not all that shocking.
	Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro.
	Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

▲