All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 2024 - Candace Owens
01:42:53
This Is Crazy! Rabbi Barclay Attacks Me for Things I Never Said.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, everybody, let's jump right into this.
A very exciting episode for you today.
Here in my hands, I am holding an article that was published by PJ Media.
The title is, Let's Be Honest.
Candace Owens is a Jew-hating bigot.
It was written by a rabbi, Rabbi Michael Barclay.
So I read this article, and honestly, there are only two options here.
Either this rabbi is genuinely ignorant of everything that I have ever said, in which case I'm happy to clarify it because he will be joining us on today's episode, or the other option is he's completely aware of the things that I have said, and he is just a monster.
I'm excited to find out when we sit down here with Rabbi Barclay.
That's what we have coming up on Candace Owens.
Alright guys, we're gonna jump right into this.
As I stated at the top of the show, we have Rabbi Michael Barclay.
He is, by the way, joining us really last second.
So if the shot is not perfect, really appreciate him coming on such short notice.
Rabbi Michael Barclay, welcome to the show.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me, Candice.
And Candice, I really want to tell you, I've written certain things and it gives me great optimism.
They were gracious and reached out yesterday and wanted to get together.
It actually makes me very optimistic.
Yes, so I am the ultimate defender of free speech, and I believe that we need more speech, not less of it.
When we see things and we believe them not to be true, rather than censoring that individual, we should actually give that person a platform, because people will walk away and be able to assess whether or not the statements they heard was true.
And so just to give a little bit of background to people listening to this, you appeared on Charlie Kirk's show, and you referred to me as anti-Semitic.
Is that correct?
Not only that, Candice, I've actually written a couple of articles, one in November and one last week.
About your anti-Semitism.
Correct.
And referring to that article that you wrote last week, published on March 9th, the heading reads, Let's be honest, Candace Owens is a Jew-hating bigot.
So that's very punchy, very strong language.
And I want to actually go through this article point by point so that you can defend your position and say why you wrote this.
Candace, I think before that, And as I said, I'm very optimistic that you would have dialogue about something.
I think before that, there are some real steps, which is, I have called you, and I'm not alone in this.
Many Jews have called you an anti-Semite.
I've also talked to people who say you have a really sweet heart, just so you know.
And you and I have a number of mutual friends in the world.
But I think it's important to first identify What antisemitism is, it is a different type of hate than any other type of hate in the world.
And if you and I are speaking crossways because we have a different understanding and definition, that's not going to lead to any dialogue.
Look, I said to Scott, I'd love to walk out of here and say, you know what?
I was wrong and write an article.
I apologize.
And I was wrong.
But the first piece is to Have a mutual understanding of what is anti-Semitism.
I think that would help a tremendous amount.
I actually totally agree with you on that.
That is a perfect place to start.
Could you provide for us a definition of anti-Semitism?
Absolutely.
I really appreciate that because I think that is the break.
If we're not speaking the same language, where can we go, right?
So there's a man, a blessed memory man named Lord Jonathan, Sacks, who was the chief rabbi of England, he had a great line.
He really defined anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism is Jews have no right to exist collectively as Jews with the same rights as other human beings.
It's kind of a weird statement, so let's just track back to understand the history of anti-Semitism.
2,000 years ago, Jews don't accept Jesus as Messiah.
For people who do not have faith, as the early Christians, as some of them have faith, some Like Rob McCoy who accepts it fully in their heart, and other people who are doing it without faith.
And those who have less faith, the fact that a Jew exists, let alone thrives, is a threat to their faith.
Because how can the Jew not accept Jesus as God and still thrive?
Unless he's associated with the devil.
So you start having these myths that are created of the Jew being identified with the opposite of God.
This really codifies from 1144 in Norwich, England, what's called the bloodline.
This is really important to understand, especially today in 2024.
In 1144, a young boy is killed and the local priest says that's because the Jews need to make their matzah with Christian blood.
It's called the bloodline.
It's going to blame the problems of other people on the Jew.
Just so you know, That's so ridiculous, not only just on its face, but we're forbidden from even having meat that has any blood in it.
This is a tort law.
You can't have, that's why, you know, we can't have steak tartare, okay?
So this gets perpetuate in combination with a fourth century, what's called the Vulgate.
I'm sorry, did you say in 1140 this happened?
1144 in Norwich Kingdom.
Okay.
This is after in the fourth century, you have something called the Vulgate.
The Vulgate is the official translation of the Bible.
In Hebrew, there's no vowels.
And the person who translates the Vulgate knows what he's doing is translating wrong.
He puts down that when Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, he has horns.
Okay?
Karen.
When actually the word was Karan, meaning that light shone from his head.
So now by 1144, you have the anti-Semitic myth of Jews have horns and they drink blood.
And I know people who've been asked when they went into the army and other places, can I see your horns?
So this still exists today in 2024 throughout America.
And I don't mean just in little rural areas.
It exists today, these myths.
That Vulgate Bible is the official Catholic Bible all the way through the 1970s.
So it is, you need to understand that that's a piece of it.
Okay, that they're equated with this kind of hate.
Because it's about Jews not having the right to exist collectively, when they live in their little communities in the Middle Ages, anti-Semitism is a hate against their religion.
By the time you get to the 18th and 20th centuries, when so many Jews have assimilated, they are in culture, they are in arts, they're in science, it's no longer against them for their religion, it's against them I just want to pause it.
You said it's a hate that mutates.
Correct.
So your belief, then, is that the definition of antisemitism can necessarily change.
Is that correct?
It's not just my belief.
It is the commonly accepted understanding in both the Jewish and academic worlds.
Okay.
Okay.
As I said, that's why I quoted this as a quote.
It's a great thing from Lord Sacks, you know, Jonathan Sacks.
It's a great thing from Niall Leckett.
This is just accepted as the understanding of, you know, I would just say off the bat, I do not accept that definitions can just mutate.
That is something that I could debate that on.
The definition of a woman, I mean, and I'm saying not just about Jewish people, I think that we have to have a concrete definition to work with because then you can just update and say, actually, I've changed that and now this is what constitutes anti-Semitism.
But Candace, that is the horror of anti-Semitism.
So what you are saying to me, is that anti-Semitism is this, and does not change.
What I am saying to you is that the entire world and scholars about anti-Semitism recognize that it is a unique hate.
That if you define it as that Jews should not be able to exist collectively, okay, as a collective, they just shouldn't have that right.
That changes from the Middle Ages with religion 18th through 20th centuries about race and then after Israel is created, it's a hatred based on the nation.
And until that is understood, that it is, this isn't something that's really questioned about among academics, theologians, Jewish scholars.
I'm not presenting it.
This is why I thought I'm so optimistic about a dialogue.
But I think a part of it is you view that The hate can't mutate it.
What I'm trying to tell you is that we have two thousands years of history.
I'm going to just push back just gently here.
For me personally, if I thought that racism could just be an ever-shifting definition based on the experience of black people, it would be a remarkable power, and I would be able to create something like BLM, which could say that everything was racist.
So I am not going to be able To agree that definition should be able to transform according to what's happening during the day.
But here's what I will say.
If you could, just because I think it's really important for us to get to going through this article, because then you might be able to explain why you view it as antisemitism.
If you could just give us what you are saying the current definition of antisemitism is today, that would be very helpful.
The current definition of antisemitism today has to do with what the feelings are.
It has to do with anti-Zionism, number one.
That is a definition.
Anti-Zionism, anti-Israel is anti-Semitism.
Okay.
So you believe that Jewish people can be anti-Semitic?
Absolutely.
Okay, so when you see a gathering of Jewish people who say, you know, I'm Jewish, but I don't support Israel or Bibi Netanyahu, you say that person can be antisemitic.
You just did two different things that were totally unrelated, Candace.
Okay.
You said that Jews that do not support Israel.
Yes.
And to Jews that do not support Bibi Netanyahu.
I'm just saying that because he's the current prime minister.
So I'm saying like if they say they don't support... This is where you're missing the point.
So I'm going to go under the following premise.
Okay?
I'm going to go under the premise that you care about people.
You and I don't know each other, but I'm going to go under that premise.
I'm going to go under the premise that you have no desire to ever hurt anyone.
Okay?
That's the premise I'm coming into this dialogue with.
You have been devastatingly hurtful.
And I think that I'm gonna go from the you don't understand what it means to the Jewish world.
There's a great teaching that comes out of every sociologist, every person in academics, is that I don't get to tell a black man if he's experiencing racism.
He knows.
I don't get to tell you if you're experiencing misogyny.
You know, if I make a comment and it's misogynist and you say, Rabbi, you know, that was really misogynistic.
My job is to say, wow, I didn't mean that.
I apologize.
That's not what I meant.
And you do and do not get the right to say what is anti-Semitic or Jew hatred.
No, I'm not trying to, I don't think I said anything about me having the right.
I just said to you, would you then view, because I did host somebody who is Jewish, Dave Smith, on my show, and I'm sure you're familiar with him.
He's a communist, he's a libertarian, he is not pro-Zionist.
So I'm just asking you for clarity, because you're saying that you can't dismiss a Jewish person, but aren't you thereby dismissing Jewish people who say that I don't support Israel as a state?
I'm just trying to have you answer that question.
I will ask you back the same question.
Are there blacks who are, do not support blacks?
Are there, pick the cause for the minority who do not support or are actually even better.
You and I both sit on the conservative side politically.
We share that, right?
And we face the same way when it comes to that.
And we both, I think, are disappointed in those who Republicans name them.
Correct?
Yes.
Okay.
Does that mean they're not Republicans?
Well, I wouldn't describe a race as a political ideology, like a political party.
That's very different.
So to say that you can't be a race, like you're not black if you don't support this, is different than, like, you're basically saying that a Jewish person can't be anti-Semitic.
So that would be like saying a black person can, in fact, be racist towards, or they're not black.
I'm not going to comment on black community.
I will say there are plenty of self-hating Jews.
Okay, so you do believe, that's all I was trying to get you to say, is that Jewish people who don't support Israel, you are saying they are anti-Semitic.
I just want to understand that.
I'm saying it very clearly, they are self-hating Jews.
Let's use that term very specifically.
And you need to understand why they are self-hating Jews.
And you need to understand, as numerous people have talked about, I've written about, Gregor's talked about, Gorka's talked about, Levin's talked about, a number of people have talked about, Shapiro's talked about, as I say I've written about, is that people want to assimilate.
For 2,000 years Jews have been persecuted, and so they want to assimilate, and so many have converted from Judaism, not to another religion, but to leftist politics.
That becomes their religion.
And they lose their identity.
That is a reality.
So, you need to understand, or I shouldn't say you need to, that's not fair, and I apologize.
I hope, I would hope that you understand a history and an understanding that we define what anti-Semitism is.
And what happened on October 7th, what happened on October 7th, and I wrote an article about you in November.
I don't know if you read it or not.
I was told that you had, but I don't know if you did or not.
I did not.
Okay.
I wish you had, and I really wish you had, because we might be in a very different place.
You went on top of Carlson.
After all, this is November.
Okay, go ahead.
I was going to say, I want to talk about that, because you put that in this article, which was published just last week.
So I wrote a very specific article, and you can find it right now, and it was an impersonal invitation to you and for you.
Despite everything else I had read or seen or heard, that my belief and my hope is that your comment of wanting to have an academics discussion about October 7th came from a place of not really realizing what October 7th was.
October 7th is unique in recorded human history as the ugliest day of humanity.
What was done on October 7th, taking a young woman, taking her phone to videotape her being raped on the corpse of her dead boyfriend, and then shot on it, and sending that video to her parents, beheading a man with a garden hoe, kicking a woman until her body parts fall off, is unique in terms of the intention to attack civilians.
And so in November, after you made the comment on Tucker Carlson about wanting an academic discussion about how, you know, those kind of comments that you made and the ennui that you demonstrate, I wrote an article saying that I would arrange for you, there's a film, a 47 minute film by the IDF, not basically, it was all the footage done by the Hamas
terrorists of what they were doing so proudly what they wanted to do.
And my belief was I don't think that you quite realize that.
I would arrange for private screening for you and your friends.
I would arrange that and then have the discussion about how you feel about October 7th.
Okay, so I just really would like to get to your article because I think it's important.
I want to acknowledge your pain about October 7th.
You are actually- That's not an opinion.
That's not an opinion.
I didn't say opinion.
your pain about.
I apologize.
I apologize.
I didn't say that.
I said I want to acknowledge your opinion about October 7th and I want to get to that because you are... Does that bother you?
Yeah, you're mischaracterizing what I said on Tucker Carlson, but I do have a clip and we're going to be able to watch it.
I definitely did not say I wanted to have an academic debate about October 7th.
That's not what I said at all.
But like I said, I have the clip, and I do also want, I think it's best for us to dive into what you actually wrote about me, because there are several mischaracterizations, I believe, of what I said, but both of us are going to be able to watch it.
So again, this is the article, and by the way, you did say...
in this article that you heard that I received your invitation. That is false.
I think it's important to just maybe name the people who told you that I received your invitation.
No, I'd rather not do that, especially since you're saying that it's incorrect,
in which case I apologize. No, you can apologize.
I just think that, like, a lot of the reason that things happen is because there is this sort of back-channeling and discussion, and nobody told me that I got an invitation, and now you've written that I refused an invitation, and so that adds to people believing— So Candace, I'm going to ask you a question right now.
I'm inviting you—forget about the article, because I have no issue and would love to write an article saying, I was wrong, Candace Owens does not feel that way.
I would love that.
So I'm inviting you right now I will set up a screening for you.
Will you come?
call.
because I want to be able to estimate.
Wait, wait, wait, I'm asking you a question.
I will take an entire article.
I am not saying I'm not going to answer your question.
I am just saying that I would like to go through this, see how you feel.
But I'm going to do it by limitation.
You said you haven't had an invitation.
I'm asking you.
I don't have to be there.
I'll set it up for you.
Okay, sure.
If you want to set it up for me to have a screening of that here without you there, that's fine.
What I'm saying is that, based on what you wrote about me, I wouldn't take an invitation from you anywhere.
I think that's fair, given what's in this article.
I think that's a normal human response, that if somebody has written something that is utterly libelous about you, it mischaracterizes what you said.
But if you want to set it up separately, and you want to send it to the Daily Wire, and you want to set up a private screening, I absolutely will watch the events of October 7th.
You know what?
God bless you.
And had I ever heard you say that, I wouldn't have written an article.
Well, I think you still would have, because you made a lot of points in here.
No, no, I wouldn't have.
No, I wouldn't have, because I believe in the idea that it's about what we act and learn.
And we have a concept called Shulism Judaism.
No, actually, Honestly, had you said there, at any point, what you just now said to me, that you would watch a screening.
I don't need to be there, but you would watch a screening.
If I set it up, I would not have written that article.
Okay.
Well, I do still want to go through these points, though, because you... Okay, but do you hear that, please?
Yes, I hear that, and thank you for saying that, but a lot of what you wrote in this article is a lot of what I'm assuming you have a friendly relationship with Rabbi Shmuley has been saying about me, so it's really important to go through these points, because when you write something like, is a Jew hating bigot, that's very strong language, and we need to go through these points.
So we'll go through all of them, sure.
Yes, thank you.
Okay, let's just begin here.
So you basically make the argument that I'm drunk on fame and that that is the reason why I have let out the truth about who I am, which makes me a Jew-hater.
First thing you say is that this is a woman who is such an anti-Semite and so ignorant of history that in 2018 she publicly said that Hitler was okay.
Do you actually believe that I publicly said that Hitler was okay?
So from the recording that I heard, including the congressional testimony, which I think was taken out of context, and from the comments that you said, okay?
And you're correct if I'm wrong, but my understanding from your comments is you were asked a question about nationals.
And you responded about nationalism using the example that nationalism was good and that what Hitler did,
Hitler was nationalistic in Germany and that was okay.
You have said specifically you think Hitler is a horrible, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And you have condemned Hitler, thank God, without question.
And you also brought him up in that discussion about nationalism.
Is that all accurate?
So when you just write, she publicly said Hitler was okay.
That is dishonest because what I actually was saying was answering a question as you brought up
where we were not even talking about Jews, not talking about the Holocaust.
A woman was asking about whether or not it's okay for people today to say that they're nationalists when it's often associated as a dirty word.
And what I was saying was that it's wrongly associated with Hitler.
I don't believe that Hitler was a nationalist because obviously Hitler Invaded Poland.
He obviously had ambitions outside of- So we have the clip, so we're going to play it.
So again, the question that's being asked of me is whether or not nationalism is an okay word to embrace.
Let's play the clip so we can hear me and what I actually said.
Yeah, I agree.
I actually don't have any problems at all with the word nationalism.
I think that it gets, the definition gets poisoned by elitists that actually want globalism.
Globalism is what I don't want.
So when you think about, whenever we say nationalism, the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler.
You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay, fine.
The problem is that he wanted, he had dreams outside of Germany.
He wanted to globalize, he wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way.
That's not, to me, that's not nationalism.
So again, we're trying there to define nationalism.
Does your statement, she publicly said that Hitler was okay, is that an honest statement?
Yeah, so let's talk about this for a moment, is that okay?
Yeah.
You were asked a question about nationalism.
You responded with an example of Adolf Hitler.
Yes, I said because Americans associate, the reason why I think it's a dirty word is because of Adolf Hitler.
And you have subsequently, and I've seen you, subsequently, and I think you even said it in the congressional hearing, you have obviously condemned him for But you brought Hitler's name into the discussion.
Correct.
And you justify that this is how America feels or how people feel.
And that's your take on it.
It's not necessarily accurate.
In fact, it probably isn't from an actual sociological standpoint.
But that's your opinion.
Fine.
But Candace, you You put in the same sentence what he did if he just had stayed in Germany was okay.
But more importantly, and here's a piece of the anti-Semitism, why bring one of the most evil men of history into the discussion?
You could just as easily have given any negative examples of nationalism.
You chose to bring Hitler on.
I did.
And I have no, if I could go backwards in the context of trying to understand why Americans think that nationalism is a bad word, it was appropriate for me to bring off Adolf Hitler.
It is totally appropriate in any capacity when you are talking about history and historical sentiments to bring up any relevant character that has created those sentiments.
So I just want to, again, I just want to yes or no.
I want to make sure we don't run out of time here.
After watching that in context, do you think it is fair that you wrote, she publicly said that Hitler was okay?
Hitler was okay?
Yes, by bringing me even into the conversation, yes I do.
Okay.
Great.
Let's move on here, because again, this discussion, we're having it between us, but I want the public to be able to deduce what's fair and what's not fair.
You then wrote this statement.
A mere month after the horrors of babies being beheaded, women being raped, and the slews of horrors from Hamas, Owens went on Tucker Carlson's show To speak about how it really wasn't that bad, and why should she even care?
After all, she seems to think that Hitler was okay, so what's the problem?
Is that true that I went on Tucker Carlson's show and said that October 7th really wasn't that bad?
Yeah, actually, you did.
You did it through the implications of the words, and I actually do know where some of those clips are, because I rewatched it multiple times.
And you specifically say you want to have an academic discussion.
You specifically say, I don't want to misquote you, that you believe you have a moderate stance because you see the children dying and on both sides.
And you talk about the pain.
And I think you do feel pain about Gaza.
And this goes back to the anti-Semitism campus.
What happened October 7th is unique.
It is, to even make a moral equivalency, this is one of the keys in anti-Semitism and in any prejudice and bigotry, is that an inappropriate moral equivalency is created.
When someone says that this race, these people, whomever, are like dogs, they've made a moral equivalency between those people and dogs, that is bigotry.
Okay.
So I just, I first want to debunk the idea that, I first want to debunk the idea that I did not, like I in any way said it really wasn't that bad.
That statement never came out of my mouth.
And I also want to show that actually contrary to that, I condemned, I condemned, I condemned what Hamas did.
So let's just show that clip of what I said.
And then I want to get to your quotation about academic discussion.
Let's just show what I said about Hamas.
I have seen every single person, including myself, condemn what happened on October 7th, because who wouldn't condemn terrorism?
It's obvious.
Who would not condemn innocent Israelis dying?
But if you then say that it is also sad when an innocent Palestinian child dies, suddenly this is pro-Hamas, or you need to say, even when you're talking about how sad it is that a child dies, you need to button that statement by saying, but that child was a human shield.
That's not going to be my response.
First off, as a mother, that's not going to be my response as somebody who is about to to give birth when I see these images of children involved on both sides of the conflict.
I have pointed to the people that are mocking dead Israeli children and said that they are horrific.
I am even keel on this matter.
And yet people think that you need to be extreme.
So people that have become more radical and extreme are perceiving a moderate stance as not enough.
People can disagree with you or agree with you or whatever, but you certainly don't seem radical on this topic.
And I'm going to hold here before you comment on that, because your next sentence, as you just said, she wanted to talk about the depravities of Hamas as an academic discussion and refused to even condemn Hamas.
So we just saw that I did condemn Hamas.
And regarding the academic discussion— No, you didn't.
I'm sorry.
No, you made a moral equivalency between Hamas and Gaza.
I didn't do that.
There is no moral equivalency.
What Hamas did is evil.
It is not a tragedy, only it is evil.
I'm sorry, Candace, but you make an equivalency that does not exist in most people's minds, and certainly in no Jew's minds.
Okay, so I'm glad that you said that, so people can hear what I actually said and hear what you are saying and how you are taking it.
I don't know how you could write this statement, she refused to condemn Hamas, when I literally said, who would not condemn these horrific events?
You don't condemn them uniquely evil, you put them in para-pursue relationships.
So you're saying that, you're saying that even though I did, so now you're admitting that I did condemn Hamas, Even though you wrote, she refused to condemn Hamas.
What condemnation is?
Is this where you really want to go, is have an English discussion on what condemnation is?
No, no, no.
You wrote, she refused to condemn Hamas.
These are your words.
Because when you put that, the moment you say that they have a moral equivalency with anything else, that's not condemnation, no matter what words come out.
I didn't.
I said, it's sad when an innocent... It's not condemnation.
And it's not... Bob, just ask me a question.
Is it sad?
Is it sad?
Sure.
I don't want to cut each other off, okay?
Because clearly what we are having here is just a disagreement.
There's no reason to get angry.
Do you think it is sad when an innocent Palestinian child dies?
Candace, I cry every day.
And it's not just for Israel.
And this is one of the things you clearly do not understand.
The same way most don't.
You're anti-Semites, you don't get it.
I cry for what's going on in Israel.
I cry just as much for what we are forced to do.
Golda Meir had a great quote.
She said that one day we may be able to forgive them for killing Israeli children.
We will never be able to forgive them for making us kill their children.
So what about my statement of saying that I also cry for Palestinian children is wrong to you if you also admit it is sad when Palestinian children die?
It's painful, but it is not in any way, shape or form morally equivalent to October 7th.
That is the anti-Semitic bigotry.
I didn't say that.
I just want to be clear.
People are watching.
It's just not what came out of my mouth, but I'm not going to, I don't want to, I don't want to get hung up.
I don't want to get hung up on that.
I want to, I want to now point to, um, You said I wanted to talk about the depravities.
I'm gonna quote it.
She wanted to talk about the depravities of Hamas as an academic discussion.
Actually, I was talking about NATO and here is a clip of what I said when I used the words
academic discussion.
Take a listen.
I mean, you can go back to me even talking about NATO expansion before.
before things erupted between Russia and Ukraine and having a meaningful discussion
about how much expansion is too much expansion.
How would we feel if we had troops in our border?
These are things that should be allowed in an academic discussion.
You should be able to sit on stage and should be able to debate these ideas
without using odd hominid attacks.
You're using it in the reference, Candace, in the dialogue about October 7th.
You're using your discussions of NATO as an analogy, an analogous way about how we should be able
to discuss October 7th.
Okay, so you think that it is fair after listening to that, me talking about NATO and me talking about Russia and Ukraine and saying that we should always be able to have an academic discussion about foreign policy, you think your statement still is fair saying that she wanted to talk about the depravities of Hamas as an academic discussion?
Because you're using that context and you're the one taking your own quotes out of context.
I played it.
I didn't take it out of context.
I just played it.
Then play the whole paragraph where you're talking before the entire issue.
I did.
So the first part was what I just showed you.
That was actually a split clip.
The first part, the first half of that was when you, the one that we just showed you,
when you said that I said it really wasn't that bad, and why should she even care?
The first part I say I condemn Hamas.
And then I said that I've been consistent in always saying that we should have a topic.
We should be able to discuss foreign policy removed from ad hominem attacks, because that
is the truth and that's how I feel.
But to be clear, I just broke out academic discussion because I was referring-
Candice, I'm going to ask you really simple questions.
No, no, no, no.
I want to keep going through this.
I think it's important here.
It's about this.
I'm going to ask you a simple question.
Do you ever mean to hurt people because they're race, religion, or color?
Ever.
Do I ever mean to hurt people because they're race, religion, or color?
Ever.
I can't hear the last part of it.
I don't know why I'm not hearing it.
I apologize.
We know about the technology.
Do you ever intend to hurt or want to hurt anyone based on their race, religion, theology, color, etc.
No.
Never.
Not once.
All right.
What you need to hear is your statement.
I'm not alone in this.
Because it is in the whole context of October 7th.
It's hurtful to choose.
Okay.
And I'd like to give you an analogy that I think that might really help our dialogue, if that's okay.
Mm-hmm.
A number of years ago, a movie came out called The Passion of the Christ.
Did you see the movie?
Yes, it's a wonderful movie.
Okay.
And I saw the movie as well.
I saw it at the opening day and saw it twice, and I arranged for a screening of priest students, minister students, rabbinic students, rabbis, ministers, and priests.
The Lord and the Mary met when I was a professor.
Okay.
I realized something in watching that movie.
There are two movies going on.
If you accept Jesus as your Savior, then that movie is so brilliant, and so painful about his suffering, that it transcends everything else, and that's all you see.
And I think you just said it was a brilliant movie, as many of my friends did, Loyola, etc.
I think it was a brilliant movie too, as well.
If you don't accept Jesus as your Savior, you're not so emotionally attached to all the suffering that Gibson portrays so well.
So what you do notice, as an example, are all the anti-Semitic things.
So I had a discussion with a woman who's the Senior Vice President of Loyola when the movie came out.
She said, Rabbi, there's no anti-Semitism.
I said, actually, I'll give you an example of one scene.
There's a scene of little Jewish kids who chase Judas.
And they morph into demons.
And they're wearing modern 20th century yarmulkes, and they have classic Jewish archetypes, stereotypical faces, and they morph into demons.
And with modern yarmulkes, it's that trope of Jews as demons.
And Lainey said to me, I don't remember that scene.
And I realized in that moment, she was so emotionally involved in the suffering of Jesus, she didn't notice the anti-Semitism.
But both are true in the movie.
You may not have the desire to have that pain in your heart, but what I'm trying to tell you is, by having a conversation with Tucker Carlson under the umbrella of October 7, which is what that segment was about, and saying that you have a moderate stance, that there should be able to be discussion, just like there is about NATO, it validates the reality of the Absolute evil that is unique to October 7th.
Had you asked me on October 6th what to do with Hamas, despite that in their covenant of 1988, their charter, which I don't know if you've read, despite the fact that in articles 7, 11, and 13, they call for the destruction of all Jews.
If you'd asked me on October 6th, I would say we should do whatever we should do for peace.
What they did on October 7th was surrender their human souls.
They became Amalek, if you're familiar with the character from the Bible.
And what they did is so evil.
It cannot be compared to anything else.
Just like what Hitler did is so evil.
No one should compare.
I don't care if it's Trump or Obama.
No one should compare any political leaders to him.
You did it under a guise.
Whether you meant to or not, it was anti-Semitic.
OK, so I'm just going to be honest with you.
I don't accept that characterization.
So what I'm doing now is I'm allowing you to say what you believe and showing the clips not removed from their context.
And we have to just allow people to take from this discussion what they can.
If you're like most Americans, you're struggling to make ends meet.
Everything is more expensive these days.
By the time you pay the bills, fill up your car, and go grocery shopping, there's almost nothing left.
You're laying out your credit card for all non-essentials, or maybe even some essentials.
Last I checked, the average credit card interest rate for Americans is sitting at 24%.
That is insane.
How are you supposed to dig yourself out of all that debt?
If you own a home, I want you to call my friends at American Financing right now.
Interest rates have finally dropped into the fives, which is the lowest they've been in a long time.
Call American Finance and you can talk about their refinance options.
They save their customers on average $854 a month by tapping into their home equity and wiping out high-interest credit card debt.
Think about it.
$854 a month is like a $10,000 raise.
What a relief that could be for you and your family.
Don't wait to take control of your finances.
These rates might not last long.
Act today.
Call American Financing at 800-795-1210.
And if you call today, you may not have to make next month's mortgage payment.
That's 800-795-1210.
That's 800-795-1210 or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
APR for rates in the 5 start at 6.799% for well-qualified borrowers.
Call 800-795-1210 for details about credit costs and terms.
Now I do want to move on though because then the next sentence almost appears to me to be the inversion of what actually happened.
You write, she castigated Ben Shapiro for being passionately pro-Israel.
I couldn't find a clip on that, so I just wanted to ask you what you were referring to, because actually what happened was Ben insulted me publicly, I have not insulted Ben publicly, so I'm just wondering where that sentence, where we can look for me castigating Ben Shapiro for being pro-Trump.
First of all, I was trying to find the actual clip, that's number one.
Number two... Just off the top of your head, where I was when I castigated him, where I was when I disrespected him.
Candice, I will be happy to go try and find you things about it.
I'm sure Ben can find them as well.
I'm sure other people can.
I want to make something real clear about this though.
I don't think that there is a place for any of the kind of dialogue, especially between people who are the same conservatives or on the same side.
I don't think there's a place to personally insult anyone.
And that comes from both sides.
I don't think it's okay for anyone to insult you or your family.
I don't think it's okay for you to insult anyone or their families.
I call you an anti-Semite because that is how I judge the way you act and what you've said.
Okay.
I'm very pleased, I'm very pleased that you've agreed to watch the documentary.
It makes me very happy and you can comment on it after you've watched it.
It makes me really happy, honestly.
And I hope that after you see that you'll have a whole different understanding.
But I don't think it's okay for anyone to say, make personal attacks.
Now, when Ben Shapiro calls you an anti-Semite, I call you an anti-Semite.
I only wish goodness on your soul, but that is how you act.
Okay.
That's very different than calling you a fill-in-the-blank pejorative.
Okay, but you did write, she castigated Ben Shapiro for being pro-Israel, so I'm just asking you...
Happy to find the exact quotes for you.
Happy to find them.
Because it just never happened.
I would never- Okay, you're saying that?
I'm happy to find where you- Okay, but he did insult me, but I did not insult Ben.
So that was very interesting because I was like, that's almost an inversion of what happened here.
Well, okay.
Candace, he says something differently, I think, but I will find and give- I'm happy to let Skylar know a place in the- and only in that specific interview, by the way.
Oh, in that interview?
We're talking about that interview.
That's why I was asking you, what interview?
Me and Tucker talking about Ben.
You and Tucker.
That I castigated him for being pro Israel.
Can I just, I'm happy, I'll say it again.
I'm happy to find those spaces where you castigated him and send them to Skylar and you can decide
to share them with your audience or not.
I will, but we'll put it in right in here if there's an example of a clip of me doing that.
It's actually, I abstained from doing that and told Tucker that it's not something that I would do.
Okay, then you go on to talk about me attacking Rabbi Shmuley.
My audience has already seen him attacking me over the last two years.
And I'm just gonna ask you a basic question.
Does a black person or any person have a right to defend themselves?
Absolutely.
Okay, because that is interesting, because Rabbi Shmuley and his daughter have attacked me and made videos of me for two years straight.
I have responded once, and you have now, you're basically saying that I'm anti-Semitic for responding.
So I'm just, I want your perception of when it is that a black person is allowed to respond.
So first of all, I know Shmuley peripherally.
We've probably met a half a dozen times, okay?
He is an incredibly knowledgeable man.
He formed the Lechain Society at Oxford.
Incredibly knowledgeable man.
I don't know all the things that he has said about you.
Judaism, pre-days Christianity, but it's also Christianity as well to an extent,
called Lashon Hara, the evil tongue.
That to gossip, to say certain things like that is really a huge avera, it's a huge sin, it's a huge sin.
I don't know all the things that he has said about you.
I do know he's called you an anti-Semite and so am I.
That's not a personal attack on you and your family.
...
For you to call a man who is extremely knowledgeable, an unholy rabbi, and his haggard daughter, forgetting about what he may or may not have done.
If he's attacked you personally, if he's said whatever horrific things about you personally, that you are a blankly, blankly, blankly, blankly, blank.
He's wrong.
If he's attacked you or your children or your family, your mother, for you to, rather than comment on whatever he's done, to call him an unholy rabbi, that is way out of line.
You don't even know what a rabbi's supposed to do.
So let me ask you a question.
Do you view that as anti-Semitic for me to respond?
Yes!
So he can attack me for two years.
Is he a racist, just to be clear?
I don't know why he only attacks you, so I can't comment.
It depends.
Janice, you don't get to get away with that.
It depends how it changes.
How did he attack you?
How did he attack you?
get away with that.
No, I'm asking because at the beginning of this discussion you did say that you can't
tell a black person.
I'll let you talk.
I'll let you talk.
It's been two years consistently of him and his daughter attacking me.
Wait, wait, wait.
I wasn't clear.
I'm asking you, I'm asking all legitimacy.
Okay, but if you're saying that you weren't there, why would you put us into running?
Isn't it incumbent upon you to research what's happened before you start saying to me that defending myself is anti-Semitic?
Candace, if he attacked you personally, if he said you were a black fill-in-the-blank, then he should be reprimanded for that, but it doesn't justify what you did.
You don't know what a rabbi does.
You don't know our theology.
How dare you call him an unholy rabbi?
How dare you go into the misogynistic—excuse me, the anti-Semitic trope of his hag daughter, something used throughout the late 18th and early 20th century.
Sorry, sorry.
Hag is now anti-Semitic?
That is a term of his hag daughter that goes back into the witches of Eastern Europe.
Why did you have to call her a hag daughter?
Just to be clear, because she's a witch.
I think she's a witch.
That's not because she's Jewish.
I would call someone a hag of any color.
I think she's a witch, what they have done over the last two years.
I believe his daughter is a hag.
I said that because that's what I believe.
You may disagree with me on that, but to say that's anti-Semitic is ridiculous.
I would call any person a hag.
Candace, I'm going to be very clear without trying to be insulting, so please forgive me if it comes off wrong.
Okay, it's not meant to.
It's fine, you can insult me.
I don't want to.
I've dealt with two years of a rabbi insulting me, so I'm totally cool with this.
I have no desire to insult anybody, okay?
But do you understand, are you familiar with the history of the grim fairy tales and the folktales of Eastern Europe?
I know that we can go back and we can also say- No, no, no, no, no.
I'm asking a specific question.
Okay.
That the witch archetype of those fairy tales were specifically modeled and called the Jews.
That the Jews of that part of the world were called hags and witches specifically because they didn't eat the same food, they had different practices, and they were excluded that way as part of the bloodline.
So you are saying that we can look at- By calling a rabbi's daughter a witch, Okay.
daughter you have tapped into an anti-semitic trope that goes back
Yeah.
hundreds of years whether you mean to or not okay now that I told you that
yeah okay do you think maybe there are better words to call her than a hag
daughter I'm actually not gonna edit my language for two people that have been
attacking me for two years And so what I'm going to say is that, and I want to be very strong on this, I am not going to be told, whether you want to dress it up as anti-Semitism, you want to dress it up as that, that I cannot respond and defend myself.
I'm certainly not going to be told that I need to be contained in how I respond after two years of consistent attacks from two individuals.
So I want to just say on that point, You and I will never come to an agreement.
I stand by everything that I said about him, and I'm not going to have that.
Everything that I say, including yesterday, when he says that me finding the products and stuff that he sells and promotes as a rabbi to be unholy, to say that I am only saying that because it's made in Israel, is plainly ridiculous.
What it looks like to a lot of people, and I'm going to tell you this and I'm expressing this, In case you are an individual, as I'm sure you are, that is
concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism, but my suspicion is that people that are
watching this are going to think that now we are using the word anti-Semitism like BLM
began using racism, right?
Which is to say that you cannot— Let me finish my statement.
I'm just telling you what I am going, this is my suspicion.
And I have tons of Jewish listeners, but given what you've said about Dave Smith, who is a libertarian, he is not a far-left liberal, he just does not support what Israel is doing.
So in this, you have said that Jewish people, you've made comments about a lot of Jewish people who maybe don't agree with what's happening in Israel.
You are now saying that a person who's been attacked for two years still needs to be careful in how they approach a Jewish person that's been doing the attacking.
No one is going to accept that.
That's ridiculous.
And then to say this particular word, it sounds like everything that anybody says needs to be first weighed against the feelings of somebody and their history.
I could find examples of black people being called witches.
I can't then say that nobody can ever call a black person a witch, you know, even if it has what happened in Salem.
You could go on and on, right?
But the point is that if you're a black person, you've been attacking for two years.
I don't care if a person calls him a rabbi.
In fact, I would question what it means to be a rabbi.
Maybe you can explain if you have been consistently attacking and threatening somebody.
Literally, he gave a quote to the Jerusalem Post, which actually I like the Jerusalem Post.
They report on things very accurately, in which he says that he wants to bankrupt Candace Owens.
That is a direct threat to somebody's livelihood.
It is despicable, and because you call yourself a rabbi, it does not mean that people cannot say that it is poignantly ridiculous that you are using finances as a mode of threat against people because you don't like their speech.
It is ridiculous, and let me tell you what, that leans into an anti-Semitic trope about Jewish people and money.
For a rabbi to stand up and say, let's bankrupt her.
Guys, you can talk over me all day.
You can scream.
You can defend me.
I'm not screaming.
I've let you talk a lot.
That's not fair.
I've let you talk a lot.
Candace, it's your show, you're gonna edit and say what you wanna say.
I'm not gonna edit this whatsoever, I promise you.
Great, terrific, I appreciate that.
No one has, if someone is attacking you, you can defend yourself, and if someone is saying a bad thing about you, I would even go and defend you as well for them saying that she's a black such and such, she's a female such and such, she's whatever it may be.
If he's attacking you, and again, I'm not privy to those two years of attacks that you've had.
But the moment you start saying things like an unholy rabbi, when you do not know a rabbi's job and you don't know Judaism, you don't know what is considered kadosh, what is considered holy or not holy, when the moment you make those kind of comments, you've crossed a line.
And you didn't need to make them.
I get you're angry.
I get you feel violated by him.
I get you feel that he attacks you unjustifiably.
I haven't been part of the discussions, so I think he may have.
But that doesn't ever give you then the right to say what you said.
And it demonstrates, again, a pattern of behavior of an unawareness that you have about Jewish theology, A lack of awareness you have about Jewish history and about anti-Semitism.
The fact that you can't accept what all academics, I shouldn't say all because I never think it's all, but what academics, what lord sects, what theologians all accept about that anti-Semitism is the unique ape that mutates.
What Prager has done a PragerU video on.
The fact that you can't even accept that is in itself problematic.
I just, I think that... Do you understand that you have decided that you, Candace Owens, are more knowledgeable, wise, and you've been brilliant in a lot of fields.
That's not what I've said.
I've never said these things.
I didn't say I was more knowledgeable.
I just said, I call his daughter a hag, and I meant it.
I'm not taking the words back.
That's what I've said.
The fact that you can't accept that the definition of antisemitism, that you think you know the definition better than scholars, academics, Jewish theologians, better than rabbis, is a level of hubris.
As I say, you may know all sorts of things about all sorts of topics, but you're now dancing in a field where Shapiro dances, I dance, where Rabbi Shmuley, you know, And I'm trying to tell you that you are repeatedly doing anti-Semitic behavior, but your underlying premise that you said at the beginning of our dialogue was that you don't accept that definition of anti-Semitism.
What I said is I don't accept that definitions mutate, is what I said to you at the beginning of this dialogue.
And I'm telling you that's the definition of anti-Semitism.
You have now said that you know more than Lord Jonathan Sacks, who I believe, I'm going to guess, actually your father-in-law, because it's not that big of a world there.
You can ask anyone about Lord Seth's.
You are now saying that you don't accept the definition.
Well, okay.
No, that's a pretty much accepted one.
No, that's a pretty much accepted one that mutates.
No, that's not true.
You don't want to start going down that path.
Yeah, that's true.
If you're saying the definition mutates, then you're saying it has no definition.
It has no definition.
No, that's not true.
Definition comes from the word define.
If it has definition, it has a shape, right?
You can't say the shape can mutate.
The square can become a circle, can become a triangle.
That means that it has no shape.
You're talking about an amoeba, right?
I'll say it again.
It mutates because the definition, again, I'm using, I'm quoting Lord Sax directly quoted
him where he says that Jews have, this is his definition.
It's pretty much accepted.
Jews have no right to exist collectively as Jews, with the same rights as other human
Yes, that sounds like a definition.
And the reason that it mutates, how that becomes manifest, is because in the Middle Ages, it's about religion.
When they come out of the shtetls, When they go into the cosmopolitan areas, and in the 18th through 27th, or 20th century, excuse me, that hate has now manifested and mutated, so it's not about religion, it's about race.
Just so I'm clear, did Lord Sacks say it mutates, or are you saying it mutates?
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear, I apologize.
Did Lord Sacks say it mutates, or are you... Lord Sacks.
He says it mutates.
Correct.
Can you just re-say the quotation, his direct quotation?
That it is a hate that mutates.
It is a hate that mutates.
It is a virus, he calls it, that mutates.
And that he's not alone in that.
And then by the time you get to the 20th century, it now has mutated to be anti-the nation.
So the hate manifests as first religion, then as race, and now as nation.
So would you say that anybody who takes issue with anything that Israel does is an anti-Semite?
Of course not.
That's ludicrous.
That's a ludicrous statement.
That's a ludicrous statement.
Okay, I'm glad you said that because earlier when we were talking about Dave Smith and I said that some Jewish people don't agree with what Israel is doing as a nation, you suggested that they were self-hating Jews.
That's not what I suggested.
What I said is there's a very difference between supporting Israel and supporting Bibi or the government.
There's a huge difference.
Support of Israel is to understand, and I think, again, this is a place, Eugene Bishop, who was one of the heads of the Central Conference of American Bishops, a great Catholic leader, said a number of things, and Monsignor Royal Batykin, a blessed memory, I actually heard him say this.
Royal said, he was one of the first people to do interfaith dialogue after Batykin, too.
And Royal said the following, he said that no non-Jew can ever fully understand the relationship between the
Jewish people and the land of Israel.
In the same way that no Jew can understand how a bunch of old bishops,
excuse me, old cardinals go into a building, white smoke comes out of them,
suddenly one of them is infallible.
It's a quote from Royal Vatican, one of the founders of interfaith dialogue in the 60s and 70s.
What I'm trying to explain to you is our tie to Israel.
That when you make an anti-Zionist, not just you, anyone makes a comment,
an anti-Zionist comment, that is anti-Semitism.
But when you say anti-Zionist... That's et cetera.
But when you say anti-Zionist, you don't mean criticizing Israel's government.
Just to be clear.
No, you don't criticize the government.
Okay.
So I'm just not... But criticizing... Okay, but there's... Let's go... Can we follow that path for a moment?
Because I think this might get us somewhere.
As I said from the beginning, I'm optimistic I'd like to get somewhere.
To criticize Israel's government is one thing.
If you want to do that, great.
Especially if you want to criticize America's involvement in its relationship with Israel, you're an American citizen.
I'm supportive of that.
But, understanding, have you ever read the Covenant of 1988 for Hamas?
No, I have not read the Covenant of 1988 for Hamas.
So let me tell you about Hamas.
In their charter, which you can find easily online, the Covenant of 1988, they claim that they are a subsidiary for the Grecian of the Muslim Brotherhood, which I'm sure you know a lot about.
And they call for the obliteration of all Jews.
They say in Article 7 that the Muslim Day of Judgment will not come Until every Jew is killed and those few who still live hide between, and this is a quote, between the rocks behind, excuse me, behind the rocks and the trees, and the trees call out, O Abdullah, O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come kill me.
The definition of a Palestine, which there is no historical Palestine.
The definition of a Palestine from the river to the sea, from the German River to the Mediterranean Sea, means no Israel.
It is, as Lord Sachs said, it is that they don't have a right to live collectively in a nation.
And so, it's one thing to say, I don't agree with what the government's doing.
It's an entire other thing to create a moral equivalency, which you keep doing inappropriately.
A moral equivalency between anything Israel does and what happened October 7th.
There is no equivalency.
Israel's not going out to go out and try to go into Arab homes and to take and torture a child in front of the parents and then kill the child and kill the parents.
Israel doesn't do that.
Israel is the most ethical army in the nation.
I think we might be having a fundamental disagreement on what moral equivalency is, and I tend to agree with Dave Smith that actually what moral equivalency is, is saying that irrespective of anything, we are going to judge these people the same.
That would be morally equivalent, right?
But we don't need to go into that because I didn't do any of that and
I just totally disagree with how you've characterized my discussion.
But you did.
With Tucker Carlson at all, because like I said, I clearly said I didn't know what Hamas did.
And then I said that it's sad when a Palestinian child dies.
And then you agreed that it's sad when a Palestinian child dies.
So I don't understand why these two statements seem to you to be trying to
morally equate to anything.
I just am making two statements.
11 minutes and 20 seconds into your video, you make the comment about a being, I believe that's the
time space.
You make the comment that you have a moderate stance and everything else is extremist.
And what I'm trying to explain to you is that once, and I hope once you see the IDF film, we can have another
dialogue.
Well, no, I'm just saying that I do think that when anything horrific happens,
it turns a lot of people into extremists overnight and they become very extreme in their language.
You have judged.
You have not let me finish my statement, okay?
I've let you talk very much.
What I have said is that when anything happens, what tends to happen after that is people become very extreme in their rhetoric.
And actually, there is a really good example.
Is it Joel over at Braveheart who wrote something very extreme following October 7th online?
And then a couple days later, he wrote a long paragraph apologizing and saying why he was emotional, why his rhetoric was extreme, and what he actually wants to accomplish.
He recognized his own emotion.
And people get very extreme when they're emotional.
It's understandable.
But when they are in that emotion, they start to perceive other people who are actually saying what they've always said as somehow attacking them or saying something that's wrong, and then usually You know, the scales fall from their eyes, the more distance there is from the actual event that took place, and they're able to hear things more rationally again.
That is all that I was saying with Tucker, is I haven't really moved any of my stances whatsoever, and that is why people are bothered.
Whether you think that's understandable or not is not going to change things.
I do want to get to this, though, because, like I said, we're not going to agree on Rabbi Shmuley, we're not going to agree on his daughter.
I'm not going to agree on your interpretation that my defense of myself is somehow anti-Semitism.
I intend to keep defending myself against somebody that I view to be absolutely despicable.
And actually, what I will say is that in terms of anti-Semitism, I think a lot of it stems from what I What I would say is individuals feeling that amidst their own communities, let's remove Jews from this, if a black person does something wrong, I immediately call it out on my show.
I've said tons of things about black people acting like thugs.
I've stood up against black people when they were using racism, basically just to absolve themselves from any critique.
But when it comes to the Jewish community, it's very odd, I think, to watch The indefensible get defended, right?
The indefensible get defended.
Like what Rabbi Shmuley, what Rabbi Shmuley did over the last two years, I would expect people to come out and say, it's obviously wrong.
Instead, what we have is you coming out and saying, well, what Candace is saying in defense of herself is actually what's wrong, rather than saying, maybe both.
Maybe saying what Rabbi Shmuley did was absolutely wrong.
But you can't take the time to look into what he said for the last two years, is what you're saying.
But you wrote this article in defense of him.
Candace.
This is not about Shmuley, and it was not in defense of him.
And I said to you earlier in this talk, if he was saying inappropriate things, he should be reprimanded for that.
That's not what you said here in your article, though.
This is about you and your pattern of behavior and your pattern of words.
And I have no issue, and maybe you should do a little bit more reading of what I've written.
You wrote, like any father, Shmuley defends his children when attacked.
Wait, wait, wait.
I have taken on the unethical behavior of Jewish leaders and Jewish organizations publicly to the detriment of my own life.
I've taken on Jonathan Greenblatt for five years of what he's done to the ADL.
I got the receipts to prove it.
You can read the articles.
Okay?
I've exposed him for what he's done that is not right.
So when you make a comment, like when someone does something wrong in the Jewish community, the Jewish community doesn't say anything.
You and I are talking, and I have a history of both calling out people who are unethical within my own tradition, and standing up for other groups that are not in my tradition that are being persecuted.
Okay.
Last year, about a year, wait, wait, about a year, and you didn't do the research about that, because about a year, year and a half ago, Catholics were being so disrespected, I'm not Catholic, by the L.A.
Dodgers wanting to honor the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a trans group
that dresses up like nuns, and honoring Dodger Stadium.
I not only wrote articles, my articles helped promote General Flynn to help promote Catholics
for Catholics to do a demonstration at Dodger Stadium that I spoke at.
But that had nothing to do with Jewish people.
Wait, and I've called out Jewish people.
Why don't you Google my name and Jonathan Greenblatt?
Okay, so Greenblatt, and I'm not alone.
I think that all together everybody I'm glad what I'm just
I am trying to communicate to you That when people can go and as they have seen as I showed
on my show all of the attacks from Rabbi Shmuley Which were available to you when you wrote this article and
then they see you write something Please let me finish my statement
They see that you write something.
Rabbi Shmuley is an author of 31 books, was a rabbi at Oxford for 11 years, has a 30-year career of writing, speaking, preaching, and guiding people in Jewish beliefs.
He has also been an activist in many causes, and most importantly, is a loving father of nine children.
And like any father, he defends his children when attacked and is proud of their accomplishments.
Hold.
Hold.
Because I never attacked them first.
They've been attacking me consistently for two years.
And then you go on.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Candace, you're smarter than this.
I know, but just let me finish, let me finish.
Then you go on and you talk about me.
People might say this might be a racist trope, but here we go.
She dropped out of college because of a quote unquote issue with a student loan, never even voted in elections until she had successfully created her unique brand, a pretty black woman who's politically conservative.
When anyone confronts her about her lack of knowledge or wisdom, she retreats to the position of counterattacking them for not appreciating a strong black woman who goes against every I haven't seen that multiple times, right?
I'm not concerned about how the public perceives it or not.
something like that and you see that comparison in how you are presenting people despite the
fact that factually speaking Rabbi Shmuley and his daughter were the ones attacking me
for two years straight, I didn't even know who they were.
When you talk about, when you speak about me like that and make it seem like I'm, I'm
sorry, let me use your words here, lack of knowledge or lack of wisdom, how do you think
the public perceives that when I'm the one that's being attacked?
I'm not concerned about how the public perceives it or not.
What I'm concerned about is if you believe, and I cannot judge this because I'm not aware
of tears I don't follow okay just My life is too busy, I got a congregation and teenagers and all sorts of things.
If you believe that Shmuley Boteach and his daughter are doing things that are attacking you on a personal level, not attacking your persona, not attacking what you do, I'm not calling you as anti-Semite, it's attacking you for how you act.
Not attacking you as a human being.
Please understand there's a difference of who we are and how we are.
She dropped out of college.
If he is attacking you on any personal way, that doesn't mean it's okay for you to attack him.
You know better than that.
You teach your children all that better than that.
No, I actually, everything I'm saying about it, I'm like, if this is holy,
like, you know, selling butt plugs with your daughter, I don't know, you're right, I think it's gross.
I think it's disgusting.
And I do not, it's not the definition of holy in the Christian faith, is what I would say.
It's weird to me.
It's very weird.
And this could be a difference in our religions, but by the way, your religion does not trump my religion.
So I think that you should respect the fact when I say something is unholy, I am referring to my religion.
His relationship between him and his daughter is very creepy to me.
The sex podcast is very creepy to me.
The idea of sitting down and talking to your father about, you know, Topics of sex in any regard is creepy to me.
Him promoting butt plugs that are sold by his daughter is creepy to me.
I have a right to say that I find this to be utterly unholy and that any faith leader, at least in the Christian community, would agree that all of this is giving us very weird vibes between the father and daughter relationship.
I can say that all I want, and I do think that part of it, and this is where we get to the topic of where people perceive this, and they say, is this a form of Jew Okay, you know what, Candice?
To say suspend your Christianity because my Judaism matters more is the feeling that I
get when you say you don't get to say it's an unholy rabbi.
Pornography is unholy in my view.
You might disagree with that.
It is unholy to Christians.
The topic of pornography, peddling pornography, selling butt plugs, the commercialization
of pornography is unholy.
And I'm going to continue to call him unholy because that is what I deem him to be.
And I say that as a Christian.
Okay, so Candace, if you made the comment, right, and you said that this man, rabbi or
not rabbi, because it doesn't matter if he's a rabbi or not from what you're telling me,
you're understanding your theology, right?
Your understanding of your Christian theology, I don't know what denomination or sect you're part of, is that what he's doing is unholy.
Then for you to say that, from my Christian perspective, what this man is doing is unholy, I absolutely respect.
For you to say, my position as a mother, as a woman, I find what is going on here is creepy, I don't find that anti-semitic.
In the slightest, either of those comments.
I really don't.
So please hear that.
If you'd said, this guy is creepy, okay, that's not anti-semitic, that's your opinion on the relationship of what he's doing.
If you said, what is, With this business that he and his daughter, I don't know if it's he and his daughter or just his daughter, I don't know if they're combining a business, I have no idea.
But that this business is, from my Christian perspective, is very unholy.
That's not anti-Semitic.
It's not.
I mean, here, if you had said that, I wouldn't be talking about it.
But I shouldn't have to say, as a Christian, because I am a Christian and it's unholy.
Okay, no, you said, you determined, you who are not a theologian, Who does not know Jewish theology at all, and I'm pretty sure doesn't know what Gebara or Mishnah are or how they're used, or the dialogues about marital intimacy.
You've decided he's unholy.
Yeah.
Now, if you said from my Christian perspective, he's an unholy man or he's doing unholy things, God bless you.
And I'm fine with it.
But you didn't.
You said it's an unholy rabbi and his had daughter.
And again, What I was really hoping to hear, which I haven't heard from you once in this very long talk, is the realization of saying, you know what, Rabbi?
I hadn't thought about that.
You're right.
I understand how that would be considered anti-Semitic, and that wasn't my intention.
I have a problem with this man.
I have a problem with him.
I've seen zero so far, other than the fact that you say you're willing to watch a documentary film by the IDF, I've seen zero self-responsibility of saying, you know what?
I didn't mean that.
I didn't mean that.
That's not my intention, and I'm sorry.
I haven't heard that from you once.
That's really disappointing.
Well, I don't want you to be disappointed.
And as I always say to people, no, I'm serious.
I don't want you to be disappointed.
I understand that human beings have a lot of feelings, right?
Everybody has, you can say, I watched this and this is how I felt about it.
For me, the reality of what I have actually said and the way that it is being interpreted, I don't think is fair.
Like, that's why I wanted to go through the clips of what you said, what you wrote that I said versus what I actually said.
When I did condemn Hamas, you're saying I didn't condemn Hamas.
You're saying I attacked Ben Shapiro, you don't have the clip available.
I feel that actually what's happening here is you want me to apologize for things that I never said on the basis of how you felt, and that's not fair.
So, I have a suggestion, okay?
I have a suggestion, okay?
You and I are both politically conservative, right?
I mean, I am, and I know you are.
And I would hope that we're all facing the same direct way.
I'd like to ask you some specific questions about the things in that article.
And you just tell me, okay?
And so if I misinterpreted something, if I misread something, if I misheard something, if you feel I misunderstood something, you know, communication happens, especially when we're doing writing, miscommunication happens.
So I'm gonna ask you simple questions that would define antisemitism with the vast majority of rabbis, Jews, and theologians.
Do you believe October 7th was uniquely evil And on a whole other level, that anything going on, especially anything going on in Gaza or anything else right now, from a moral, ethical, your point of view as a Christian, I am asking you, point blank, do you feel that October 7th, what happened, is uniquely at a whole other level and depth of evil?
Yes or no?
I believe that what happened on October 7th is evil.
Do you believe it is a whole other level than anything else, especially what is going on in Gaza?
I think that there have been things that have happened historically, like the Holocaust, like what the Bolsheviks did to Christians, the Christian Holocaust.
You're not answering.
I'm trying to answer your question.
I guess I'd like you to explain to me, in your own context, Holocaust versus what happened on October 7th.
Why is October 7th uniquely evil compared to the Holocaust?
Maybe you can educate.
You don't know your history about the Holocaust then.
The Holocaust was a machine that was made and cost Germany the war.
So you're saying October 7th?
October 7th was a specific intention.
Remember that on the Holocaust, the first attacks are war attacks because it's all about a war effort on world domination.
October 7th is about to torture and do such horrific things.
To civilians, to the weak, weak, innocent people.
So I'm asking you a very simple question.
I'm right to answer it.
I think it was evil.
And you know, if you, if you feel it's uniquely bombed a million Iraqi civilians, you're talking about just like if you're weighing against civilian costs.
And again, I think what, how you said about when you read the, you know, you watch the Passion of the Christ and you have, you know, your eyes when you watch and I have my Christian eyes.
Very difficult for me to say when the greatest Holocaust that ever happened was against Christians and what the Bolsheviks did to us, drowning us in barges.
I cannot, like, I cannot discount the things that have happened to Christians.
We are actually the most persecuted religion in the world, and it's never described as uniquely evil.
And so, what happened on October 7th is evil, full stop.
What has happened in the past to Christians, what is happening currently to Christians in Armenia.
It's evil.
You're feeling that it's unique is probably, you know, I want to recognize it, but I don't want to sit here and pretend that I've minimized what I've been through.
I mean, unique evils, slavery, I'm a black woman.
I mean, there's tons of things that have happened, and I don't want to pretend that I think that when it happens to Jews, it's somehow more evil or more unique than when it happens to other groups all around the world.
I'm going to ask you a specific, simpler question.
Do you believe there is a qualitative difference between what was done on October 7th and the horrible tragedies that are going on in Gaza with children being used as human shields and dying with and being killed with all of that?
There are tragedies going on in Gaza we both agree on.
Do you believe that there is a radical difference between what happened October 7th It's really not a moral and huge qualitative difference.
How it's happening is different.
How it's happening is different.
There's no question that it's different.
It's evil just the same way.
Children, innocent children dying, if the consequence of children is dying, of course it is an evil thing for innocent children to be dying.
Do you believe?
Okay, so I want to make sure I'm hearing you.
Okay, I don't want to misinterpret you.
I am asking for specific answers.
It is always an evil, and I again say this as a Christian, it is always an evil when innocent children are killed.
Always an evil.
So do you believe that October 7th is more evil than what's happening when the innocent children are gone?
I didn't... Pardon?
I'm asking you.
What?
I'm asking you the simple question, do you believe there's a greater depth of evil in what happened October 7th than any of the tragedies that are happening in Dallas?
Actually, let me, let me, let me actually toss this back to you because this is, this is a great question.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
This is a great question.
I'm glad you asked this, but I want to toss this to you because one of the things that was also radically misinterpreted, actually, I was talking about Brian Mass in his language when he said that You know, there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian life.
I thought that was horrifically genocidal to say that.
And that has been a huge conflict of whether or not what's happening is genocidal or if it's not genocidal.
And something that I don't think that we have a clear definition on is genocide.
And this is, obviously the word was created post-Holocaust.
And so I would just like to get from you because we're running, because we are running out of time.
So I'm not, I'm not trying to duck.
I don't use the word.
You don't use the word genocide?
Nope.
So you wouldn't describe the Holocaust as a genocide?
I would describe it in other ways.
It's just not the language I use.
So for me to say that this is a definition would be arrogant and inappropriate.
But what percentage of a certain group of people have to die that would constitute a genocide?
Because I think that's part of it.
Listen, if we can just say X amount of people, percentage of people dying of the same ethnic group.
Candace, you don't, I'm telling you point blank.
You're asking me to define a term that I don't go around utilizing.
So you're saying define this.
And what I'm saying is I don't use that term.
I am asking you a very simple question, which you have avoided a yes or no on.
I haven't avoided a yes or no on anything.
I've been answering you this entire time.
I am just saying that if the consequence for me, I cannot, like what happened October 7th to me was so horrific and was so evil.
And it partially, the reason why I believed it was so horrific and so evil was there was no military target.
You were just targeting civilians and civilians are innocent, right?
And so for you to then tell me, is it more or less evil when now innocent civilians... What is the number at?
Can you tell me what the number is at of Palestinian children?
No, I can't because of Hamas stories.
I know, but I'm asking you.
I'm not asking Hamas, I'm asking you.
I'm asking, I'm asking, I'm going to try to make this simple.
So when you're asking me to compare, compare, what you're actually asking me to do is to compare, is to state whether or not I believe.
No, no, I'm going to make it easier than that.
Please let me finish this.
I'm going to make it easier than that for you.
I feel that that question, okay, is you trying to make a statement.
Let me try to make a question, okay?
I believe, I believe that what happened on October 7th is a uniquely dark form of evil On a whole other level, on a whole other level in every way, shape, or form of evil than anything that is happening in God's.
Do you agree with my statement or disagree?
I don't need explanations.
Do you agree with me or disagree?
I have said to you a thousand times, I feel like what you are asking me to do right now, I'm looking at the cost of life.
This is how I analyze things.
You can't agree.
You're not going to agree with me.
I am uncomfortable with the amount of innocent life that is lost right now in Gaza.
So you're not going to agree with me.
I am not.
Let's move on.
Let's move on because there's other stuff.
Because there's another piece in that article.
Because part of it feels like you want me to weigh, like, is Jewish innocent life worth more than Palestinian innocent life?
And I'm not comfortable with that.
You've already made that clear that you don't view it the same, or you'd be able to say that we have not.
I view innocent life as innocent life.
Like I'm saying, it's just innocent life lost.
Candace, you've made it clear you weren't able to answer yes to that question.
Fine.
Let's move on to something else.
No, no, no.
But I want to, again, state.
No, no, no.
You've already made yourself clear.
I don't need more.
No.
You've made yourself clear.
You're good.
I'm good.
No.
Please stop, because it's important for listeners to understand.
When you ask a question like that, okay, it's different than you saying, do you think it is justified for people to defend themselves?
You are basically asking me a question.
Is more Israeli life, is that more of an evil when it limits laws than when more Israeli, than more innocent Palestinian life?
And I am not comfortable with that question.
Candace, that's not what I said.
I made a statement.
No, I made a statement of my beliefs and only asked you if you could agree or disagree, you couldn't take a stand.
I'd like to move to something else in that article that we have not discussed, because I am conscious of time, which is you make a comment in, again, and I think you do want to discuss this as well, I'm going to guess, and I want to be conscious of your time, because I think it's important.
You said will you stand on October 7th?
That's fine.
Will you stand where you stand?
You make a comment in your comments back to Shmueli Boteach about, and again, you make an equivalency where you talk about the Hollywood Jewish gangs, that Kanye West believes that, and that shouldn't we be able to talk about that?
And you make the analogy with Crips and Bloods, and I make the comment how anti-Semitic this is because it's a trope, It goes back almost a hundred years.
There was it to end how, how Jews control Hollywood.
In the twenties, the Hollywood entertainment industry was started by majority of them.
People's CEOs were Jews.
They couldn't get jobs in anything, any other business when they came to this country, many of them were sons of rabbis.
And there's a truth.
There's a great book called empire of their own of the entertainment industry was started by Jews.
And how they did control Hollywood in the early days, they employed other Jews who were unemployable.
That stops by the 60s and 70s and is totally gone by the 80s and 90s.
Okay?
And it is gone.
It is a trope that people say, understand that when we go back, remember we talked about the blood, the blood libel?
Blood libel has become a term that's understood by academics, anthropologists, socialists, not political, but social anthropologists.
The blood libel is when you're blaming Jews for the problems of people that, other people, that you're radically blaming them for because of the anti-semitism as a form of anti-semitism.
For many decades, you were told, oh, the Jews control Hollywood.
The secret cabal, they control Hollywood.
You perpetuated that.
Again, I understand you're defending against Smirley Botath.
I understand that you've explained yourself about Rabbi Shmuel.
But you made the specific comments about this Jewish group, I think you call them gangs or thugs, as opposed to saying that there are people who are, who run Hollywood, who are bad people, do bad things.
I'm not going to question whether there are or are not.
But you identified the noun to their adjective, they're acting badly as a Jew.
When the reality is that Jews don't control home.
There may be many executives who are Jews, but that doesn't mean that they are anything other than Jew and they only go to temple twice a year.
You and I both know Christians like that, right?
Yes.
So I just, I wouldn't judge a Christian.
I would not judge Christians based on the idea that some of those guys who don't really practice Christianity, as my friends who are pastors define it, I'm not Christian.
That people call themselves Christian but don't act in a Christian way.
I would never use the noun of Christians.
Whether these people, their mothers were Jewish or not, you perpetuated an anti-Semitic trope that is almost a century old.
And as opposed to saying, there are some bad guys who are doing bad things and when they're called out about it, they hide behind a call of anti-Semitism.
That's a very different kind of statement that you could have said.
As opposed to talking about the Hollywood Jews, the Jews controlling Hollywood.
That whole thing.
Well, I never said the Jews control Hollywood, but Jewish people have said that.
We can share an article up a link here.
That was published in the LA Times a couple of years ago, where a Jewish man wrote, let's face it, we do run Hollywood.
That was totally fine a couple of years ago.
Maybe he's anti-Semitic.
It's not fine.
It's not ever been fun.
Okay, well, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, like, this was something, this has been said, and it's actually funny because I was reading a very old article yesterday, forgetting the guy's name, I'm blanking on him, but he's, he was the founder of Screw Magazine.
He's a Jewish guy, Al, Al something, I'm blanking on his name.
Anyways, he gave a very long interview about how, you know, the Jews hire the Jews and they get into Hollywood, and like I said, this was said not a hundred years ago.
So this is something that many Jewish people have said, but sure, I guess you're saying that now it's a trope, but I just want to be clear that many Jewish people have said this in many interviews within the last 50 years, okay?
Now, I do want to press pause on that and ask you a question.
Is it possible for Jewish people to form a gang, full stop?
to find a gang.
To form a gang?
I mean, let me phrase that, because I don't even need to ask that question.
The answer is, of course there is, because there were Jewish gangs in New York.
Okay, yes, of course.
Common sense that Jewish people can form a gang, black people can form a gang,
gangs exist, will always exist.
Jewish gangs have existed and will always exist.
Like, you know, worldwide, gangs happen.
How absurd it is to say that if you think that there is a gang that is operating,
to even suggest that there might be a person in the, that is automatically a trope.
That would mean it would be impossible for us to illustrate.
As soon as you say it's a trope and magically you can't talk about it.
I gave examples of multiple people in Hollywood, okay?
We're talking about from Dave Chappelle, to Kanye West, to Cat Williams, to other artists that are Christian that have said that there is some sort of a gang full stop that is operating in Hollywood.
I then gave an example of a list of exact names that Michael Jackson said were operating as a gang.
Rabbi Shmuley was among that list of people.
So to say that we can't even explore that possibility, that Rabbi Shmuley, you know, and that this list that somebody is giving or something that artists are saying might be true is somehow anti-Semitic, I'm not saying all Jewish people are gang members.
I am saying that it is, of course, possible that a gang is operating anywhere in the world.
That should just be allowed to be said without being accused of creating a trope.
I'm sorry, Candace, again, We're at the same place that we started.
Of when I said to you, I don't get to tell a black man if he's feeling racist.
I don't get to tell a woman if you're experiencing misogyny.
I keep telling you that things you have said repeatedly are hurtful to a huge number of Jews and are considered anti-Semitic.
And instead of hearing any, wow, I didn't realize that.
All I have heard for the lengthy time we've been on, we've been on together, which I, again, I think is very gracious and kind of you, but all I have heard from you, not one sense of responsibility, not one, you know, I've said to you that if something is true or not true, I don't have issues saying I'm wrong, I don't have issues apologizing, but I haven't heard from you one sense of responsibility that you have Absolutely not.
this is the example.
You have tapped into a thousand year old blood libel trope, a century old trope specifically about Hollywood.
And you keep going off, can this be intellectually right?
Can't you do this?
Can't you?
You've heard a bunch of Jews.
Did you want to?
Yes or no?
Absolutely not.
Okay, you did.
You have.
You continue to.
Yes.
I understand.
And what I would say to you... Only if you don't want to.
Then realize that what you're saying is... It taps into centuries-old hate.
Realize that what you are saying is hurtful and hateful.
that when I am speaking, I get what you are saying, I get what you are saying,
but I'm going to tell you what this is reminiscent to me of.
This is reminiscence of when- So you can't just say I'm sorry.
Listen, please just let me finish my statement.
This is reminiscent to me of when I got interested about BLM and I thought that there was corruption in BLM
and black people all over America were crying, insisting on the BLM narrative.
And I thought that there was corruption and that this was operating like a gang
and they were taking money, there was money laundering.
There were tons of people, Al Sharpton among them.
And it sounds a little, you know, You can't possibly say this, Candace.
You can't possibly.
It leans into this.
It leans into that.
But my instincts are my instincts, and I have a right to pursue those instincts.
And to the extent that any black person was harmed in the making of my documentary, and then I ended up being proven right, that there was corruption that was happening, I'm very sorry that they felt that way.
So I will say, to the extent that any person who is finding my interest in what is happening in Hollywood feels that it's leaning into some trope and that I shouldn't keep going, I am sorry that you feel that way.
But I am also going to follow- I'm sorry, that is just disingenuous.
I'm telling you that I understand that people have feelings, but I would like to follow and pursue the facts.
And the facts are that many people in Hollywood are saying that there is some sort of a gang that is operating.
I am not blaming Jewish people.
Okay, well I'm not blaming Jewish people for that at all.
So I just want to be very clear.
That is an anti-Semitic trope that has led to all sorts of horrible things.
What did it mean to you in Hollywood?
I'm telling you, as someone who knows this, and by the way, again, maybe you should read what I was writing about BLM.
Because you and I were on the same page.
Okay, and did you also get called racist and people calling you all sorts of names that maybe weren't true because you thought BLM was just actually corrupt?
I actually took them on about the fact that all lives matter.
My house was vandalized four times.
And that was considered racist at that time.
So would you have been right to revoke that and apologize to black people because they said that that was racist?
Here's the thing.
No one sat there and said, you're a racist about it.
They said all sorts of things.
And I got death threats.
And as I say, my house was vandalized four times.
I called for a strike of MLB on PJ Media of Major League Baseball the day that they decided to put BLM on Major League Baseball.
And if someone said to me, you know what?
You're playing into a stereotype that goes back centuries old of fill in the blank.
I would have rewritten something.
I would have said, I'm sorry.
Okay.
I am telling you with absolute authority, That what you are saying about Hollywood is anti-Semitic.
There's not a, this is what theologians, this is constant and it is an expression of a blood libel going back to 1144.
You're saying, well, I don't mean to hurt someone.
Okay.
If I apologize to you, my apology would be, gee, I apologize.
I'm sorry for what I did.
I'm sorry.
Not, I'm sorry for how you feel.
I'm sorry for how I made you feel.
I genuinely am sorry if you interpreted my suspicion about a gang operating Hollywood to be some sort of a condemnation of all Jews.
It's actually the exact opposite, which is why I specifically named- I'm telling you that- Are you going to let me speak?
Well, that is the reason why I specifically named Rabbi Shmuley, who was listed by Michael Jackson, who has been listed multiple times, and who I believe operates like a gang member by his threats that he's been saying against me that he's going to bankrupt me.
I'm not going to pretend that I don't think that Rabbi Shmuley operates like a thug, and I'm going to withhold me stating that, clearly, because you're saying, well, that leans into an anti-Semitic trope.
Him being Jewish doesn't mean anything to me.
Him acting like a thug and making threats against my life and livelihood is something that... I did say Rabbi Shmuley.
I did say Rabbi Shmuley.
Time out.
Because you just said something, okay, that is really beautiful if you walked that talk.
You just said him being Jewish, him being a rabbi, doesn't have anything to do with him being a thug.
I said that on my episode, too, about the bugs in the cribs.
Wait, wait, wait.
I don't watch your episodes, Candace, forgive me.
How can you write these articles and then say, I'm sorry, I didn't watch it?
That is completely ridiculous.
So you get to write articles and libel me, but then say I didn't watch the episode?
You wrote a whole section on the episode.
I watched the clips that you do.
That's ridiculous.
You literally wrote an entire paragraph saying that I attacked him as a thug, a monster, all of this stuff, and you bring up the Bloods and the Crips, which is from that episode, but fail to mention that I said they're using... I watched your Blood Crips part.
Wait, wait, Candace.
I watched your Blood Crips part, and I read your comments on Twitter about calling him a thug.
I specifically, in that episode of Bloods and Crips, said that being Jewish is being used as a seal.
It has nothing to do with the fact that they're Jewish whatsoever.
But you kept calling him a rabbi.
And the simple reality is, if you really believe, okay, that Shmueli Boteach is doing something wrong.
He's operating like a thug.
Which I hear you believe.
If you believe that he is acting in whatever way, okay, calling him out on that?
God bless you.
But when you take it to the place of putting unholy rabbi, because that's your definition, when you take it to the place of him being a... If he's a jerk to you, he's a jerk to you.
It doesn't matter if he's a rabbi, a priest, Jewish, or whatever, right?
So why bring up the rabbi and Jewish part?
Well, first off, he goes by Rabbi Shmuley, so that just isn't... Okay, wait, wait, wait.
But why bring up... If someone's being a jerk to you, It doesn't matter if they're white, black, purple, Jewish, Catholic, or anything else, they're being a jerk.
Okay.
So all we ever need to do is call them out for being a jerk.
I didn't say Rabbi Shmuley is being a jerk to me because he's Jewish.
I just called him Rabbi Shmuley because that's what he goes by.
We are running out of time, so I do want to give you just a full minute here to wrap up and to express to people how you feel about this issue because I think that's really important.
Look, first of all, I appreciate that you wanted to have a dialogue in any form.
I'm extremely sad.
I'm a little bit optimistic.
I am optimistic that maybe you and I can have a dialogue after you watch October 7th's film, if you actually do see it.
I will arrange for it, just like I can do with Skylar, your producer.
And put him in the right context to arrange it for me.
And if you really watch it, I'd be very interested in your reaction.
I'm a little bit optimistic about that.
I am severely disappointed that we have spent however long, and I do appreciate the time, however long together, I think over an hour probably, right?
And I do appreciate that.
I am extremely disappointed that I did not once hear, and I'd like to give you a concept called Shubba in Judaism.
Shubba means that when you've done something wrong, you recognize you did it wrong, you apologize for doing it, try and fix it.
Makes for a healthy society.
And I am extremely, extremely disappointed that not once in our conversation did I hear you take responsibility for what you said.
You have taken responsibility.
I'm sorry if that made you feel that way.
I'm extremely disappointed that you have decided you have a clearer definition of anti-Semitism than Fort Sachs, myself, Ben Shapiro, etc.
Going back, scholars, academics, whomever.
I'm extremely disappointed that not once have I heard you say, wow, I messed up, Rabbi.
I realize what you're saying.
I understand what I did wrong.
You know, I'm not going to phrase it that way again.
Using Shmuley's example, you could just say, you know what?
You're right.
I don't need to attack him and his daughter being rabbis.
They're just bad people to me.
I don't need to.
Make a comment about a Hollywood gang of Jews.
They're just bad guys who are running Hollywood that may have whatever relationships.
You've tapped into ancient tropes that are anti-Semitic tropes.
You have repeatedly, repeatedly demonstrated a hate for Judaism and Jews.
And I'm hoping that will change, but it takes a certain level of self-awareness to be willing to say, I did wrong.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to do it.
I pray and hope that you will.
I believe, um, I do trust when people say you have a nice heart, niceness, and I really would hope that ultimately, um, we can, we're both conservatives.
There are a lot of Jewish conservatives, a lot of black service, and we can all be on the same side, pointing in the same direction, as opposed to being split because of these kind of heated comments.
It wasn't just one.
Thank you very much for being here.
And like I said, we are not going to edit you in any way.
We will definitely give you the ability to send that video that you said of me attacking Ben, which I am very sure doesn't exist.
And then, uh, last thing I want to say is I have faith in my God.
Wait, one question, Candice.
I actually, this went very long, and I have to get to a temple meeting, and then I have lunch with a mutual friend of ours, actually.
Um, uh, so I don't know when I can get that to, does it matter if I don't get it to, to late this afternoon?
Um, that should be okay.
Okay.
I, I just, I just, I just want to be, you know, I want to be respectful and I also, I wanted to, This has gone on for both of us.
This has gone on much longer, and I appreciate it.
Yeah, no worries.
And I would have you back.
We should always want more speech, not less of it.
Nobody should ever be calling for the censorship of any person.
I believe in free speech, even the speeches I disagree with.
What I'll say is what I always say.
I have faith in my audience.
They know who I am.
They know what I have said and in what context I have said it.
I have a huge Jewish following, and I am confident In their belief in me stems from the fact that they've been listening to the show and they know that I hold no hatred in my heart against Jews.
I just don't believe any group is exceptional.
I don't believe any group, black, white, Spanish, you watch my show, you're going to get offended.
And I am always going to call out wrongness when I see it.
And to the extent that we are using antisemitism as a tool to bar people from critiquing certain individuals a la Rabbi Shmuley, it is going to make an enemy of me, but I will never be an enemy to the Jewish people.
So ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for watching the show today.
I cannot wait to see your comments.
Stick around because, as usual, tomorrow we'll be back with a brand new episode.
Alright guys, I'm just picking this up really quickly because as you heard throughout that discussion, the rabbi said that after the conversation, he would send to us evidence within the Tucker Carlson interview of my having attacked Ben Shapiro for being pro-Israel.
He was unable to produce a part of that discussion with Tucker as evidence.
What he sent us instead was a tweet that I wrote And just to contextualize this, in response to a tweet that Ben had written, obviously everyone's aware of this public feud, Ben told me to quit and I responded with this.
I wrote in response, you have been acting unprofessional and emotionally unhinged for weeks now and we have all had to sit back and allow it and have all tried to exercise exceeding understanding for your raw emotion, but you cross a certain line when you come for scripture and read yourself into it.
I will not tolerate it.
I wrote that in response to Ben writing, Candace, if you feel that taking money from a daily wire somehow comes between you and God, by all means quit.
He was writing that in response to biblical scripture.
I had tweeted, blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
When men shall revile you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake, no one can serve two masters.
Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve both God and money.
Scripture from Matthew.
So again, this is just in the interest of being an honest person and giving him an opportunity to produce his evidence.
That is what the rabbi sent us over was my tweet in response to Ben.
I would not interpret that as me being on the attack, but that is how the rabbi read it.
▲
Export Selection