The Ben Shapiro Show - Democrats' Magical Impeachment Misdirection | Ep. 886

00:00:00.000 Democrats call Republicans' bluff on impeachment procedures, an American military member blasts Trump over Ukraine, and an Obama official calls for rewriting the First Amendment.

00:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:09.000 Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:10.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN professionals.

00:00:18.000 Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash Ben.

00:00:23.000 Okay, so we begin today with Impeachment Day 2019 because there are some new developments.

00:00:28.000 These developments are really two in nature.

00:00:31.000 One is the House Democrats Changing their rules and procedures for the impeachment inquiry.

00:00:36.000 And this has got a lot of Republicans out there saying things like, well, if they're changing the rules, this shows that their rules were insufficient the first time.

00:00:42.000 Like, they could have just been transparent from the beginning.

00:00:45.000 Obviously, they now acknowledge they did something wrong.

00:00:47.000 That's true.

00:00:48.000 That's true.

00:00:49.000 There's only one problem, which is that nobody cares.

00:00:50.000 The reason nobody cares is now the Democrats will simply claim, well, you know, at the very beginning, it was important that we have behind closed doors meetings and that we restrict public views so we could get the early information.

00:01:01.000 But now we're going to get that out there in public.

00:01:05.000 Trying to hang your hat in defense of President Trump on all this impeachment stuff on the basis of procedural Inequities is just a fail.

00:01:17.000 And the reason it's not going to work particularly is because what you are now seeing is Democrats saying that we're going to broaden the procedures.

00:01:17.000 It's not going to work.

00:01:23.000 So we don't actually know how the Democrats are going to broaden those procedures yet.

00:01:26.000 We're going to find out on Thursday.

00:01:28.000 But for Republicans to sort of jump both feet in and suggest that this move by the Democrats somehow undermines the entire investigation.

00:01:37.000 Again, it's true that it shows the Democrats know they were doing something wrong from the very beginning.

00:01:41.000 But it is also true that that's not going to matter because now Democrats have opened the doors wide and said, OK, here we are.

00:01:46.000 Let's do this thing.

00:01:47.000 That is Democrats calling Republicans bluff and no amount of sort of puffed up outrage over Democrats now doing the right thing.

00:01:53.000 is going to detract from where we go from here in impeachment 2019.

00:01:57.000 So that is development number one.

00:01:58.000 Development number two, as we're about to discuss, is the testimony of a lieutenant colonel who is a member of the National Security Council, who was probably the source for the whistleblower.

00:02:07.000 We'll talk about that in just one second.

00:02:09.000 First, Let's talk about protecting yourself online.

00:02:12.000 So I'm online like 24-7.

00:02:14.000 I'm online all the time.

00:02:15.000 You probably are too.

00:02:16.000 I mean, if you're working in the business world, there's a good shot that you are online an enormous amount of the time.

00:02:20.000 And when you are online, there's a significant possibility that somebody is seeking your information, whether it is big data or whether it is hackers trying to actually break into your secure communications, steal data from you.

00:02:30.000 If you ever had your credit card hacked, Usually that happens because you're at some sort of public Wi-Fi and somebody on the public Wi-Fi is grabbing all of your data and then using it against you.

00:02:39.000 This is why you ought to be using a VPN.

00:02:41.000 And the VPN that I trust, the fastest VPN, the best VPN, is ExpressVPN.

00:02:45.000 ExpressVPN runs in the background of your computer or phone.

00:02:48.000 And then you just use the internet the way you normally would.

00:02:50.000 You download the app, you click to connect, and voila, you're now protected.

00:02:54.000 I won't go online without ExpressVPN, and you should not either.

00:02:57.000 ExpressVPN is the fastest VPN I've tried.

00:02:59.000 It costs less than $7 per month.

00:03:00.000 It comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

00:03:02.000 ExpressVPN uses new cutting-edge technology called Trusted Server to make sure there are no logs of what you do online.

00:03:08.000 It's time to stop hackers, Big Brother, internet companies from grabbing that data.

00:03:12.000 Take back your online privacy the same way I did, with ExpressVPN.

00:03:15.000 Right now, you can protect your online activity today.

00:03:18.000 Find out how you can get three months for free at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.

00:03:21.000 That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Ben for three months free with a one-year package.

00:03:26.000 Again, that's visit ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to learn more.

00:03:29.000 There's a reason that we discuss them each and every day on the program.

00:03:31.000 I really do trust the folks over at ExpressVPN.

00:03:34.000 So as I say, House Democrats said on Monday the House will vote Thursday to formalize procedures for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump's decision.

00:03:42.000 Democrats say the move will ensure transparency and provide a clear path forward.

00:03:46.000 This has prompted the White House to point out that if the Democrats are so interested in transparency moving forward, why weren't they interested in transparency?

00:03:53.000 To begin with, that is a fine critique.

00:03:55.000 It cuts no weight moving forward.

00:03:57.000 It cuts no weight moving forward.

00:03:59.000 And meanwhile, Democrats are focused in, not on the procedural question, they're focused in on the testimony of one Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who is a Ukraine expert assigned to the National Security Council.

00:04:10.000 He testified in the House impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, and he offered new details on the push for investigations of President Trump's political rivals and corroborating other witnesses with his firsthand account of the alleged attempt at a quid pro quo, according to the Washington Post.

00:04:23.000 Vindman is the first person to have listened in personally on the July 25th phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump said he wanted a favor after Zelensky broached defense cooperation between the United States and Ukraine.

00:04:35.000 So apparently, Vindman was listening from the White House Situation Room along with other NSC officials and members of Vice President Pence's staff.

00:04:43.000 He said this in prepared remarks, and he said he was so concerned by the call, he said that it could be seen as a partisan play that could undermine American national security.

00:04:50.000 He reported it to the NSC's lead counsel.

00:04:53.000 Behind closed doors, according to people familiar with what transpired—again, this is why all of this should be out in the open, it should be televised, because we get these selective leaks—Vindman also testified on Tuesday that the contents of the July 25th call differed slightly from what is stated in the official transcript that the White House released late last month.

00:05:11.000 So now he's making the claim that the actual transcript that was released by the White House, which was actually a call memo, the way that that is put together is a bunch of witnesses to the call come together and try to reconstruct from notes and from memory exactly what was said on the call.

00:05:23.000 It's not like they take a recording, play it back, and then put together a transcript.

00:05:27.000 And there are some accusations that the Trump administration had messed around with the transcript.

00:05:31.000 And I had said that seemed far-fetched because there were a lot of people who were Listening to the call, and presumably they all took part in putting together the transcript, Vindman says that the contents of the July 25th call were in fact slightly different from the official quote-unquote memo that the White House released late last month.

00:05:48.000 Vindman says that Zelensky did reference Burisma and not just some nameless company, and when Trump pressed him to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter, Zelensky responded positively.

00:05:59.000 Hunter Biden sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, for some five years.

00:06:04.000 He said that he remembered Trump going on about how Joe Biden was on tape boasting about Ukrainian funds, which is probably just a reference to the fact that Joe Biden is on tape boasting about how he withheld $1 billion in American loan guarantees to Ukraine.

00:06:16.000 So that's nothing really new.

00:06:18.000 Now, here is the problem for Republicans.

00:06:20.000 It's not Vindman.

00:06:22.000 I mean, this is what's so astonishing.

00:06:23.000 Everybody is treating the Vindman testimony as though this is something new and shocking.

00:06:28.000 Well, again, we've all seen the transcript.

00:06:31.000 What he is alleging was different in the transcript is not all that different from what we saw in the transcript, so that does not amount to a Nixonian Watergate cover-up of the actual contents of the call.

00:06:40.000 The contents of the call were problematic enough, right?

00:06:42.000 I mean, it wasn't a perfect call.

00:06:43.000 It was an impeachable call, but it wasn't a perfect call by any stretch of the imagination.

00:06:47.000 Trump is doing some pretty blatant and ugly things in that phone call, in my opinion, and we all know about that.

00:06:53.000 Now, that's not impeachable.

00:06:54.000 That's not impeachable.

00:06:55.000 Now, What Democrats are doing is they're trotting out witnesses to the phone call to suggest that somehow they have some additional information to add.

00:07:03.000 I don't see the additional information that Vindman is adding.

00:07:05.000 The only thing that becomes pretty clear from Vindman's testimony is that Vindman was probably the person who was talking to the whistleblower.

00:07:11.000 Remember, the whistleblower was not on the call.

00:07:13.000 He says he spoke to people who were on the call, who were supremely concerned about the call, and then he reported it up the chain of command.

00:07:20.000 anonymously in another part of the government.

00:07:22.000 So this really isn't about the whistleblower anymore.

00:07:24.000 Probably Vindman was talking to the whistleblower in the first place.

00:07:27.000 He says he wasn't the whistleblower, but again, multiple officials apparently were troubled by the call.

00:07:33.000 So is he really adding anything new to the debate here?

00:07:35.000 The answer is really not so much.

00:07:38.000 I mean, he's sort of doing the same thing that Bill Taylor was doing from afar or that Gordon Sondland was doing.

00:07:42.000 He is adding his gloss to what happened.

00:07:45.000 Well, now we have the transcript, so we sort of know what happened.

00:07:48.000 And we have the text messages between Bill Taylor and Gordon Sondland, so we know what happened.

00:07:51.000 And we have testimony coming out from people who were first-hand involved in these conversations, not just people who heard the conversations.

00:07:57.000 So, we know what happened.

00:07:58.000 So why is Vindman being trotted forward?

00:08:00.000 Well, the reason that Democrats are putting Vindman out there is because he's a really good-looking witness for them.

00:08:04.000 The reason he's a good-looking witness is because he's an Iraq War veteran with a purple heart.

00:08:08.000 Because he has a long career in the military, and because he's very much pro-aid, American aid, to Ukraine.

00:08:15.000 So it was almost as though the Democrats were bringing out Vindman, believing, hoping, that Democrats would attack Vindman, so then they could suggest that Republicans were willing to attack an Iraq War veteran with a sterling career.

00:08:27.000 In order to protect President Trump, right?

00:08:29.000 It's almost a catfishing ploy.

00:08:32.000 Now, that's not about Vindman.

00:08:33.000 Vindman seems like an honorable dude.

00:08:35.000 I mean, Vindman served.

00:08:36.000 I didn't serve.

00:08:37.000 I wasn't in Iraq.

00:08:37.000 Vindman was in Iraq.

00:08:38.000 Vindman performed heroically in the field.

00:08:40.000 I didn't.

00:08:41.000 And I have very few questions about Vindman as a human being.

00:08:45.000 Like, I don't see why you would attack Vindman as a witness. 1.00

00:08:48.000 In fact, I think it's incredibly stupid to do so. 0.97

00:08:50.000 I mean, the main point to make about Vindman is this dude has no more information than you or I do. 0.99

00:08:55.000 He listened to the phone call.

00:08:56.000 We have now seen the transcript of the phone call and all of these sort of color commentary that he's adding about, well, you know, the transcript left out this little piece or this little piece.

00:09:05.000 From what we are being told by Vindman, nothing fundamentally changes in the text or tenor of the phone call based on what happened during a few of the ellipses.

00:09:14.000 And President Trump immediately fell into this trap because, of course, President Trump is a man who hates exquisitely.

00:09:21.000 And when somebody crosses him, he really attacks them.

00:09:23.000 So President Trump went after this Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.

00:09:28.000 He wrote on Twitter, Now, the media are playing that as though Trump is going after Vindman in a serious way.

00:09:32.000 He called him a never-Trumper.

00:09:33.000 Now, the media are playing that as though Trump is going after Vindman in a serious way.

00:09:43.000 He called him a never-Trumper.

00:09:44.000 Okay, that's just that in the lexicon of President Trump insults, that one really does not rank.

00:09:50.000 He just means somebody who doesn't like him.

00:09:52.000 Anytime somebody doesn't like President Trump or doesn't like something he does, President Trump calls him an ever-Trumper.

00:09:56.000 So does that rise to the level of him challenging Vindman's patriotism or suggesting that Vindman is a bad guy or something like that?

00:10:03.000 Well, in order to make that claim, You really have to connect the NeverTrumper tweet with the NeverTrumpersAreHumanScum tweet from a couple of weeks ago.

00:10:09.000 But when President Trump goes after Vindman this way, is he really attacking Vindman's patriotism?

00:10:15.000 I'm not seeing that explicitly, at least.

00:10:18.000 Trump's tweet followed assertions on Fox News by a former Justice Department official named John Yoo.

00:10:23.000 John Yoo was on it with Laura Ingraham, and he talked about Vindman.

00:10:26.000 And I think that he claims that his comments are being misinterpreted.

00:10:30.000 I think that that is probably correct.

00:10:32.000 But here is what John Yoo had to say about Vindman and about the allegations that the Ukrainian government was talking to people like Vindman and saying, like, what do we do to get our aid here?

00:10:40.000 By the way, the Ukrainian government is sort of allowed to do that.

00:10:43.000 Any claims that the Ukrainian government is doing something wrong by going to U.S.

00:10:46.000 officials and saying, listen, we don't know what Trump wants.

00:10:49.000 Clarify what he wants.

00:10:50.000 Is this really what he wants?

00:10:52.000 That's not... John Yoo's about to say that that's sort of an espionage operation by the Ukrainians, not by Vindman.

00:10:57.000 But, is that espionage?

00:10:59.000 That's called normal foreign policy practice, meaning the back and forth that happens between governments and low-level officials.

00:10:59.000 No, that's not.

00:11:05.000 Most negotiations don't happen at the top level.

00:11:07.000 Anyway, here is John Yoo going after the Ukrainians for the conversations.

00:11:10.000 Here we have a U.S.

00:11:13.000 national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House, apparently against the president's interest, and usually they spoke in English.

00:11:26.000 Isn't that kind of an interesting angle on this story?

00:11:31.000 I find that astounding, and some people might call that espionage.

00:11:36.000 Okay, well, when he talks about espionage, he says he's talking about the Ukrainians reaching out, not about Vindman engaging in espionage or being a traitor or something.

00:11:43.000 Is it astonishing that the Ukrainians reached out to somebody on the National Security Council to find out what was going on?

00:11:48.000 No, that's not astonishing.

00:11:49.000 It's not.

00:11:49.000 I'm sorry, that's the way... I know this is not the typical line that you're hearing in a lot of conservative media.

00:11:55.000 That is not astonishing in any way.

00:11:57.000 It isn't.

00:11:57.000 Okay?

00:11:57.000 There are plenty of people who are calling routinely, members of the American foreign policy community, trying to gather information about what they can do in order to obtain what they want from the United States.

00:12:07.000 As long as the American officials aren't spilling confidential information, nothing wrong is going on there.

00:12:12.000 Really.

00:12:13.000 I mean, by the way, Bill Taylor suggested that he'd had those sorts of conversations.

00:12:17.000 Sundlund had suggested he had those sorts of conversations in the text messages.

00:12:20.000 So, I fail to see that Vindman did anything wrong here. 0.97

00:12:24.000 I also, like, again, this is so stupid because the best Republican defense on this, Trump's best defense is, Vindman perceived the phone call differently than I did. 0.98

00:12:31.000 That's his prerogative. 0.99

00:12:33.000 End of story.

00:12:34.000 That's the whole thing, right?

00:12:36.000 And until you get, for the 1000th time, Donald Trump or Rudy Giuliani to testify about what exactly this whole thing was about, was it about investigating President Trump's suspicions about Ukrainian corruption going back to 2016, which obviously exercised him, or was this about him hating Joe Biden and wanting to get Joe Biden and mobilize a foreign country to prosecute Joe Biden?

00:12:53.000 What was this about?

00:12:55.000 Perceptions by third-party players really make no difference here.

00:12:58.000 So the testimony doesn't actually add anything, but Republicans fell into the trap of attacking the witness, which is exactly what Democrats wanted here.

00:13:05.000 We're going to get to more of this in just one second.

00:13:07.000 First, let's talk about the importance of the Second Amendment.

00:13:10.000 So as we're going to talk about a little bit later on in the show, the Democrats really do not like the First Amendment.

00:13:14.000 A lot of Democrats want to undermine free speech.

00:13:16.000 They want to undermine freedom of religion.

00:13:18.000 Well, when the founders enshrined those freedoms, In the end, those freedoms are protected by your vote, and if the government decides to override those freedoms, in the end they are protected by the Second Amendment.

00:13:28.000 When the Founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas, practice, religion without limitation by government.

00:13:35.000 That's the First Amendment.

00:13:36.000 The Second Amendment was created to protect those rights.

00:13:38.000 That's why I am a gun owner.

00:13:40.000 Because I care about protecting my rights.

00:13:41.000 I care about deterring the government from violating my rights.

00:13:43.000 I care about protecting myself from people who would attempt to hurt my family.

00:13:47.000 Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility and building rifles is no different.

00:13:50.000 Started in a garage by a marine veteran more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, builds a professional-grade product which is built to combat standards.

00:13:59.000 Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company.

00:14:01.000 They design, engineer, manufacture life-saving equipment.

00:14:04.000 and about going hunting.

00:14:05.000 It's about protecting yourself and protecting your rights.

00:14:07.000 To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to bravocompanymfg.com.

00:14:12.000 You can discover more about their products, special offers, upcoming news.

00:14:15.000 That is bravocompanymfg.com.

00:14:17.000 If you need more convincing, find out even more about BCM and the awesome people who make their products at youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa.

00:14:23.000 Badass American patriots.

00:14:25.000 Go check them out.

00:14:26.000 bravocompanymfg.com.

00:14:28.000 bravocompanymfg.com.

00:14:30.000 Okay, so the Democrats are very high on this Vindman testimony Apparently, Vindman went to the NSC's lead council with concerns about a July 10th meeting between Gordon Sondland, Kurt Volker, who was then Special Envoy to Ukraine Energy Secretary Rick Perry, then National Security Advisor John Bolton, and senior Ukrainian officials.

00:14:48.000 During the meeting, according to Vindman's prepared statement, Sondland demanded that Ukrainian leaders deliver specific investigations to secure a meeting between Zelensky and Trump.

00:14:56.000 Vindman says he was told about the meeting by Sondland.

00:14:58.000 And he says that Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma, which is basically just a complete copy of what Bill Taylor said, right?

00:15:09.000 Bill Taylor, the highest ranking official in Ukraine from America, the charged affairs in Ukraine, he said exactly the same thing.

00:15:16.000 Vindman says, I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push.

00:15:28.000 Is he saying the same thing that Bill Taylor was saying?

00:15:30.000 So what exactly is special about his testimony?

00:15:32.000 The answer is not a whole hell of a lot.

00:15:35.000 Not a whole hell of a lot, but because there have been some Republicans who have made disparaging remarks about Vindman, suggesting that because he is of Ukrainian-American origin, that he has some sort of dual loyalty to Ukraine, that really he cares about Ukraine and them getting their money.

00:15:47.000 He doesn't care about America's foreign policy, which is silly.

00:15:50.000 I back aid to Ukraine.

00:15:51.000 I'm not from Ukraine.

00:15:52.000 Most Republicans back aid to Ukraine.

00:15:53.000 They're not from Ukraine.

00:15:54.000 By the way, until the last five minutes, Donald Trump backed aid to Ukraine and provided lethal aid to Ukrainians in their fight against the Russians.

00:16:00.000 President Trump, last I checked, is not from Ukraine.

00:16:02.000 It's a bad mistake to do all of this.

00:16:04.000 And of course, Democrats are jumping all over it.

00:16:07.000 Joe Biden suggesting that Vindman is a hell of a patriot and turning this into a fight over Vindman's patriotism.

00:16:14.000 Republicans didn't have to go here.

00:16:15.000 It was a bad political move.

00:16:17.000 That's the way the President acted.

00:16:19.000 He did the same thing with John McCain in 2015.

00:16:21.000 He did it with the Gold Star family member.

00:16:24.000 He did it with Taylor.

00:16:27.000 This guy won the Purple Heart.

00:16:30.000 This guy is a hero.

00:16:31.000 This guy is a patriot.

00:16:34.000 But this is just Trump's style.

00:16:37.000 It's the same reason why he has a bunch of his thugs out there and, you know, engaging in this kind of activity of intimidation.

00:16:45.000 The Giulianis and the cronies that got arrested.

00:16:48.000 I mean, this is despicable to do this to.

00:16:52.000 This guy is a patriot.

00:16:55.000 I've never met him, but he is a hell of a patriot.

00:16:58.000 Okay, well, he seems like a patriot, and I'm not really challenging his patriotic status.

00:17:03.000 I will say that the celebration of Vindman is very different from the Democrats' treatment of military members and other walks of life, suffice it to say.

00:17:11.000 With all of this said, the question becomes, okay, is any of this impeachable?

00:17:14.000 And we're basically going around in circles here.

00:17:15.000 We're going around in circles, because the bottom line is, until we hear from Giuliani or Trump and the math changes in some way, it's gonna be very difficult to get Republican senators on board for impeachment.

00:17:24.000 But that's not really what this is about.

00:17:26.000 In the end, what this is about is democratic misdirection from the fact that they're going to be unbelievably bad at governing the country.

00:17:31.000 Because the fact is this.

00:17:33.000 Whether or not you believe that President Trump committed impeachable offense, if you're a Democrat, what you really don't want to talk about is your own agenda.

00:17:41.000 Because your own agenda is wildly unpopular with the American people.

00:17:44.000 If you're running an anti-Trump campaign, which is smart, then you make impeachment the focal point.

00:17:49.000 If you're trying to push your own ideas, you're going to be in a lot more trouble if you are a Democrat.

00:17:53.000 And you can see that this is actually impacting the polls going forward to 2020.

00:17:57.000 According to Axios, Republicans are worried about a quote-unquote total wipeout in 2020.

00:18:02.000 The House, the Senate, and the White House.

00:18:05.000 House Republicans in swing districts are retiring at a very fast pace, especially in the suburbs of Texas and elsewhere.

00:18:10.000 There are 19 GOP House members who are not seeking re-election this time around, which is a very high number.

00:18:15.000 The Republican Senate majority suddenly looks like it's in serious jeopardy because a lot of the Republicans in swing states are lagging behind.

00:18:21.000 Democrats are raising a lot of money and polling better than Republican incumbents in a lot of the battleground states.

00:18:26.000 President Trump right now in the polls is trailing every major Democratic candidate nationally and in the swing states.

00:18:32.000 The real Senate question is a problem.

00:18:35.000 National Journal's Josh Crashour points out that if Trump doesn't win a second term, Democrats only need to net three seats to win back the majority.

00:18:42.000 Scott Reid of the U.S.

00:18:43.000 Chamber of Commerce, he says that third quarter fundraising reports show three Republican senators being outraged by Democratic challengers in Arizona, Iowa, and Maine.

00:18:52.000 That'd be Susan Collins and Joni Ernst and Martha McSally in Arizona.

00:18:59.000 He said, we're all very worried.

00:19:01.000 So, all of this is scary stuff for President Trump and for the Republican Party, obviously.

00:19:07.000 And Democrats are excited about all of this, because in the end, the more impeachment is in the headlines, the less they are in the headlines.

00:19:13.000 The more you're reading about Vindman, and attacks on Vindman, and President Trump railing about all this on Twitter, the less you are thinking about the fact that Beto O'Rourke called for the revocation of every non-profit status for every religious charity in America. 0.99

00:19:26.000 The more that you are thinking about Donald Trump and Ukraine, the more headlines there are about Donald Trump and Ukraine, the less you are thinking about the fact that Elizabeth Warren wants to completely decimate the American economy, and that she is a hypocrite and a liar. 0.90

00:19:38.000 The more you are thinking about Ukraine and President Trump, the less you are thinking about Medicare for all and the complete takeover of your healthcare. 0.97

00:19:45.000 This is what Democrats want.

00:19:48.000 Because the more you focus in on the Democrats, the less you want to vote for them.

00:19:51.000 The more you focus in on President Trump, Democrats assume, and the polls tend to show, the less you want to vote for him.

00:19:57.000 So, what should Republicans be doing at this point?

00:19:59.000 They should be spending a lot of their time, of course, defending Trump if they believe that he shouldn't be impeached, right?

00:20:05.000 They should, of course, be defending Trump from the overwrought accusations of Democrats at this point, but they should really be spending the bulk of their time pointing out that there's an entire Democratic race going on on this side of the aisle where Democrats are doing extremely radical things.

00:20:18.000 And we're in the end, let's be practical about this, Republicans in the Senate are not going to vote to impeach President Trump in all likelihood.

00:20:24.000 It would take a cataclysmic occurrence.

00:20:25.000 It would take Rudy Giuliani going on the Hill and saying, of course we're about to get Joe Biden, right?

00:20:29.000 It would take him literally saying that in order for the impeachment to take place, which means this thing peters out at the beginning of next year, and then you are left with the Democrats running on Trump is corrupt and Republicans are corrupt, so Republicans had better get their act together and start campaigning on, guys, you know what Democrats want to do if they actually are in charge of the country?

00:20:47.000 Because it's really, really scary.

00:20:50.000 We're going to get to more of this in just one second.

00:20:52.000 I'm going to explain a few of the more radical democratic proposals being put out there that are moving into the mainstream pretty quickly.

00:20:58.000 First, let's talk about the earbuds you are using to listen to this show.

00:21:01.000 So, are you using those old-fashioned Marty McFly headphones that pop over your entire ear?

00:21:07.000 They look like earmuffs and you're out in the middle of a blizzard in winter in Minnesota.

00:21:11.000 Or are you using those earbuds that have the wires and the stems and you take those you put them in your pocket and they tangle up and then you have to unknot it like Alexander the Great except you can't just cut them?

00:21:20.000 Well, maybe what you ought to do is check out Raycon.

00:21:22.000 Raycon has just released their best model yet, the E25.

00:21:26.000 They have six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass, a more compact design that gives you a nice noise-isolating fit.

00:21:32.000 Raycon's wireless earbuds are incredibly comfortable.

00:21:34.000 They are perfect for on-the-go listening and for taking phone calls.

00:21:37.000 Unlike some of your other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are stylish and discreet.

00:21:40.000 No dangling wires, no stems.

00:21:41.000 One of the things I like about them, they come in a variety of colors.

00:21:44.000 They have a bunch of different fits so that they fit perfectly in your ear.

00:21:47.000 Now is the time to get the latest and greatest from Raycon.

00:21:49.000 Get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com slash ben.

00:21:53.000 That's B-U-Y-R-A-Y-C-O-N dot com slash ben for 15% off Raycon wireless earbuds.

00:21:58.000 Again, that's buyraycon.com slash ben.

00:22:01.000 Buyraycon.com slash ben.

00:22:03.000 Okay, so as I say, Democrats are focused on impeachment because it's hurting a lot of the Republicans.

00:22:09.000 According to The Hill, impeachment is raising the likelihood the Senate will be a real battleground next year and that Democrats could regain the majority.

00:22:15.000 Democrats are going to lose Doug Jones's seat in Alabama, so that means they're going to have to make up four seats.

00:22:20.000 But there are a bunch of vulnerable incumbents.

00:22:22.000 Susan Collins in Maine, Cory Gardner in Colorado, McSally in Arizona, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and Tom Tillis in North Carolina.

00:22:28.000 Four of those people were outraised by their Democratic opponents in the third quarter of 2019.

00:22:33.000 All five have higher disapproval than approval in their home states.

00:22:37.000 Collins is particularly vulnerable.

00:22:38.000 She has a 49% disapproval rating compared to 43% approval rating.

00:22:43.000 If Trump's numbers go down, then the Republicans could lose the presidency, and they could continue to lose the House, and they could lose the Senate.

00:22:50.000 Things could get really ugly really, really quickly.

00:22:52.000 So impeachment is playing for Democrats?

00:22:55.000 Republicans had better shift the conversation pretty quickly.

00:22:58.000 There was this assumption made by Republicans that the more impeachment was talked about, the better it was for Trump.

00:23:02.000 And Trump made those sorts of noises early on.

00:23:05.000 That is true when the president has an inherently high level of popularity going into the impeachment.

00:23:09.000 If you're Bill Clinton and you're walking into impeachment with over a 50% approval rating, and then people are like, we got to impeach him.

00:23:15.000 Your numbers are going to go up, not down.

00:23:17.000 If you are the most polarizing president in modern American history, and you are already riding at like 41% in the polls, and then people start talking impeachment over you being you on a phone call with Ukraine, the numbers are going to go down.

00:23:30.000 It's not going to work the same way.

00:23:32.000 I'm not going to lie to people.

00:23:36.000 About what the polls show when it comes to approval for impeachment.

00:23:39.000 Approval for impeachment shows right now a majority of Americans, okay, a majority of Americans now say, according to most polls, that they are willing to see Trump impeached.

00:23:49.000 Now, does that actually mean that this is true in each state?

00:23:54.000 Not really, but it's damaging Trump even in the states where they don't approve impeachment.

00:23:57.000 So, for example, there is a poll that was just done in Arizona, and the poll shows that the people of Arizona are giving Trump very low marks, but by the same token, they don't want to see him impeached.

00:24:10.000 But that really doesn't matter because he's not getting impeached.

00:24:13.000 Okay?

00:24:14.000 Impeachment is a proxy for do you like the president or not at the highest available level.

00:24:19.000 Over at FiveThirtyEight, the columnist Amelia Thompson at DeVoe, she has a piece called Why Democrats Are Moving Quickly With Impeachment, and she says because they're attempting to get this done before primary season really opens up, because they understand that Republicans are going to vote this thing down, and so they may as well simply Get this thing over with so that they can run on the basis of it.

00:24:43.000 So how should Republicans respond to all of this?

00:24:45.000 Well, they should respond in a few ways.

00:24:47.000 One, they should respond by defending Trump on the merits.

00:24:50.000 They should, as I say, make the case that I have made, which is the only plausible case, which is that when it comes to Trump's activities in Ukraine, he basically has what you might call the UFO theory of Ukraine.

00:25:01.000 If the president of the United States urged a foreign country to investigate UFOs because the United States was very interested in the presence of UFOs, Would that be, like, a waste of time and money?

00:25:12.000 Probably.

00:25:14.000 Would that be impeachable?

00:25:15.000 Not really.

00:25:16.000 The president would claim it's a legit interest of the United States to find out about UFOs.

00:25:20.000 Well, the same thing is sort of happening in Ukraine, right?

00:25:22.000 There are legit inquiries to be made about Ukraine and Ukrainian corruption.

00:25:26.000 Joe Biden, Burisma, CrowdStrike.

00:25:29.000 Are those among them?

00:25:30.000 CrowdStrike, almost certainly not.

00:25:32.000 Joe Biden and Burisma, eh.

00:25:34.000 But overall, Ukraine and corruption, yes, right? 0.59

00:25:36.000 So that was always Trump's defense, that in my mind, I have this whole ball of corruption that is in my head.

00:25:42.000 We should go after all of it.

00:25:43.000 That's always Trump's best defense.

00:25:44.000 That's what he should be saying.

00:25:46.000 And then he should be moving on to the generalized fact that Democrats are talking impeachment not because they're good at their jobs, but because they're very, very bad at their jobs.

00:25:53.000 That is the real problem here.

00:25:55.000 Okay, so now let's talk about that Democratic agenda.

00:25:57.000 First of all, let's talk about the sudden concern that Democrats have over foreign interference with America's electoral system and foreign interference with regard to America's politics.

00:26:09.000 Hey, remember all the way back to the 1990s when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were involved, allegedly, in a scheme to funnel Chinese money into the U.S.

00:26:18.000 election in 1996?

00:26:19.000 That did not result in Clinton's impeachment.

00:26:22.000 Well, now we're finding out that when Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012, a Saudi tycoon and his business associate sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the United States to help pay for the inaugural celebration and get a picture with the president, according to court documents and an analysis of campaign finance records by the Associated Press.

00:26:37.000 U.S.

00:26:37.000 election law prohibits foreign nationals from making those sorts of political contributions, but the donations Sheikh Mohammed al-Rabbani tried to send to Obama's inaugural committee were funneled through a seasoned straw donor instead.

00:26:48.000 The intermediary, Imad Zubari, agreed this month to plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions to several American political candidates on behalf of foreign nationals.

00:26:57.000 He is also set to plead guilty to concealing his work as a foreign agent as he lobbied high-level U.S.

00:27:02.000 government officials.

00:27:03.000 He served—Zuberi, by the way—served as a top fundraiser for both Obama and Hillary Clinton during their presidential runs, including stints on both of their campaign finance committees.

00:27:13.000 And then he switched his support to Trump immediately after the 2016 victory.

00:27:16.000 So, what does this mean?

00:27:17.000 It means that corruption, unfortunately, is sort of rife in American politics, and as Americans feel that way, they are less likely to believe that Trump has done something utterly, utterly without precedent.

00:27:29.000 Okay, with all of that said, where should Republicans be focusing right now?

00:27:32.000 As I say, Half on impeachment and half on the Democrats' agenda, because the Democrats' agenda right now is so terrible and so awful and so bad, and now they're coming out of the woodwork.

00:27:42.000 They're getting confident now.

00:27:43.000 Democrats are getting confident. 0.66

00:27:44.000 They're saying the quiet part out loud, whether it's Beto saying that he wants to remove nonprofit status from every religious charity in America, or whether it's Richard Stengel, former editor of Time magazine, And State Department Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs under Obama from 2013 to 2016.

00:28:00.000 So that you would imagine, as the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, he'd be very much in favor of free speech.

00:28:06.000 Wouldn't you?

00:28:07.000 Wrong.

00:28:08.000 He has a piece today in the Washington Post titled, Why America Needs a Hate Speech Law.

00:28:13.000 He says, as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.

00:28:20.000 Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Quran.

00:28:26.000 Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?

00:28:28.000 It's a fair question.

00:28:30.000 No, it's not actually a fair question.

00:28:34.000 Your right to free speech pre-exists government.

00:28:36.000 See, this is the problem.

00:28:37.000 When you're a Democrat, when you're on the far left, you believe that your rights come from government.

00:28:40.000 So why should government allow you to do things?

00:28:43.000 That's not the question.

00:28:44.000 The question is, what gives government the right to invade your rights?

00:28:47.000 That's the question.

00:28:48.000 You're getting it asked backwards, Richard Engel.

00:28:50.000 He says, Yes, the First Amendment protects the thought that we hate, but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.

00:28:58.000 So now he's not even claiming that incitement to violence is the standard.

00:29:01.000 He's saying that if I burn a Quran, which I wouldn't do, by the way, because why would I burn a Quran?

00:29:05.000 Like, perfectly decent book not to burn.

00:29:08.000 Like, I'm not a book burner. 0.97

00:29:09.000 But, if I were to burn a Quran, And then a Muslim were to kill somebody over it. 1.00

00:29:15.000 That would not be my fault. 0.99

00:29:18.000 That would not be my fault.

00:29:20.000 That's an absurdity.

00:29:21.000 But that's what Richard Engel is suggesting.

00:29:23.000 This is basically the heckler's veto.

00:29:24.000 If you say something and people go fight about it, then we should outlaw that speech.

00:29:27.000 He says, in an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.

00:29:31.000 He says, it's important to remember our First Amendment doesn't just protect the good guys.

00:29:34.000 Our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society.

00:29:38.000 In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Russia's internet research agency planted false stories, hoping they would go viral.

00:29:45.000 They did.

00:29:46.000 Russian agents assumed fake identities, promulgated false narratives, and spread lies on Twitter and Facebook, all protected by the First Amendment.

00:29:53.000 The Russians understood that our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem.

00:30:01.000 When Putin said back in 2014 there were no Russian troops in Crimea, an outright lie, he knew our media would report it.

00:30:07.000 And we did.

00:30:10.000 So, let me get this straight.

00:30:11.000 Because some people uncritically repeated Vladimir Putin's lies in 2014, that means that we have to outlaw American speech?

00:30:18.000 So basically, any information that Richard Engel doesn't like should be considered hate speech and then banned in the United States.

00:30:24.000 I've been saying for a while, the First Amendment is under severe attack by the hard left in this country, and it's not going to remain on the hard left very long.

00:30:29.000 It is going to skew over into the mainstream left incredibly quickly.

00:30:33.000 It's already done this in the UK, as well as Canada, where there are serious questions about whether you can raise your child as a boy, if your boy is a biological boy and claims he is a girl, and then you say, well, no, I have a right to raise my child the way that I want.

00:30:46.000 In Ontario, theoretically, that kid could be taken away from you.

00:30:49.000 Now, in the United States, we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but you can see that the left doesn't like those amendments very much, which is why the New York City Human Rights Commission keeps passing all of these regulations suggesting that they will fine you a quarter of a million dollars if you intentionally misgender somebody or something.

00:31:05.000 Or if you use the term illegal alien.

00:31:08.000 Anyway, Richard Engel continues that all of this is because the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era.

00:31:14.000 This is what you constantly hear from the left, by the way.

00:31:16.000 Things are too complex to rely on the Constitution.

00:31:19.000 No, they're not.

00:31:21.000 The Constitution was written with a baseline understanding of human nature.

00:31:25.000 The left believes that the Constitution is wrong.

00:31:27.000 That's all that's happening here.

00:31:29.000 But their understanding of human nature and the Constitution is wrong.

00:31:32.000 But according to Richard Engel, we should just get rid of the First Amendment.

00:31:34.000 He says the amendment rests on the notion that truth will win out in what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas called the marketplace of ideas.

00:31:41.000 The marketplace model has a long history going back to the 17th century English intellectual John Milton.

00:31:45.000 But in all that time, no one ever quite explained how good ideas drive out bad ones, how truth triumphs over falsehood.

00:31:52.000 Milton and early opponents of censorship said truth would prevail in a free and open encounter.

00:31:56.000 A century later, the framers believed that this marketplace was necessary for people to make informed choices in a democracy.

00:32:01.000 Somehow, magically, truth would emerge.

00:32:04.000 The presumption has always been made that the marketplace would offer a level playing field, but in the age of social media, that landscape is neither fair nor level.

00:32:11.000 So in other words, he doesn't trust people to make good decisions, so he's going to control what you ought to see.

00:32:17.000 He's gonna control how you access information.

00:32:19.000 He says, since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred.

00:32:24.000 These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust.

00:32:29.000 We call them hate speech laws, but there's no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is.

00:32:33.000 In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.

00:32:40.000 I think it's time to consider these statutes.

00:32:43.000 He says the modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg versus Ohio and holds that speech that directly incites imminent lawless action or is likely to do so can be restricted.

00:32:53.000 He says that domestic terrorists like Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech.

00:32:58.000 Speech doesn't pull the trigger.

00:32:59.000 But does anyone seriously doubt that hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?

00:33:04.000 Let the debate begin.

00:33:05.000 Hate speech has a less violent but nearly as damaging impact in another way.

00:33:09.000 It diminishes tolerance.

00:33:10.000 It enables discrimination.

00:33:12.000 Why shouldn't the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation?

00:33:21.000 All speech is not equal.

00:33:22.000 And where the truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.

00:33:25.000 I'm all for protecting thought we hate, but not speech that incites hate.

00:33:29.000 So, in other words, he's not for protecting thought we hate.

00:33:32.000 Right?

00:33:32.000 He's not.

00:33:33.000 Because his standard of incitement is extraordinarily broad.

00:33:36.000 This is the world Democrats want.

00:33:38.000 This is what Republicans should be pointing out.

00:33:40.000 This is where their chief focus should be.

00:33:41.000 Not on Impeachment Gate 2019.

00:33:43.000 All the information is in doubt.

00:33:44.000 Once all the information is out, then put your focus there.

00:33:47.000 But, right now, where should Republicans be putting their focus?

00:33:49.000 In the fact that this is the America that Democrats want.

00:33:52.000 is Richard Engel's America, and that scares the living hell out of me, as it should you.

00:33:55.000 I don't want those people in charge of the federal government, or any government, for that matter.

00:33:59.000 We'll get to more of this in one second.

00:34:01.000 First, let's talk about that great day back when you were 13 years old and you got those braces off, and you were like, oh man, I'm never gonna wear those ugly, terrible braces.

00:34:09.000 They cut my cheeks and they looked terrible.

00:34:11.000 I had a metal mouth.

00:34:11.000 It was just awful.

00:34:13.000 And your orthodontist is like, and also remember where are these retainers?

00:34:16.000 And then a week later, you're brushing your teeth and you accidentally knock the retainers in the toilet and rather than reaching into the toilet, you're like, eh, well, I guess that's that.

00:34:23.000 And now it's 20 years later and your teeth are all out of alignment.

00:34:25.000 Well, maybe you should be considering Candid.

00:34:28.000 Candid's aligners can help straighten your teeth faster than traditional wire braces.

00:34:31.000 Treatment takes just six months on average.

00:34:33.000 An experienced orthodontist licensed in your state creates a custom treatment plan.

00:34:37.000 Then they show you a 3D preview, so you can see how your teeth will look after you're done.

00:34:40.000 Candid's aligners are comfortable and removable, and completely invisible.

00:34:44.000 Candid ships your aligners directly to you, so there's no hassle of going to an orthodontist's office, and Candid costs 65% less than braces.

00:34:51.000 With each aligner purchased, by the way, Candid also will donate $25 to Smile Train.

00:34:55.000 They bring safe, 100% free cleft lip and palate treatment to kids around the globe, which is a really awesome thing to do.

00:35:00.000 I'm gonna have that photo-ready smile ready by the holidays.

00:35:02.000 I've been using Candid.

00:35:03.000 They make it really easy.

00:35:04.000 You can, too.

00:35:05.000 Go to candidco.com slash Shapiro and use code Shapiro to get 75 bucks off.

00:35:10.000 That is CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.

00:35:12.000 Code Shapiro for 75 bucks off.

00:35:14.000 Again, CandidCO.com slash Shapiro.

00:35:16.000 Code Shapiro.

00:35:17.000 Okay.

00:35:17.000 We're going to get into other Democratic plans for the future that should scare the living hell out of you.

00:35:22.000 This is why they're focusing on impeachment and not on their own policy preferences.

00:35:25.000 We'll get to that in just a minute.

00:35:26.000 First, go over to DailyWire.com and subscribe.

00:35:28.000 You know the drill.

00:35:30.000 $9.99 a month, $99 a year.

00:35:32.000 Plus, we have this magical DailyWire app that gives you special access to me and to our writers.

00:35:37.000 You can access all of our content including articles and backgrounds from the shows and more straight from the app.

00:35:44.000 And the All Access subscribers get our new exclusive discussion features where you can interact directly with people like me.

00:35:48.000 The app is available from Apple and Android.

00:35:50.000 Download it today.

00:35:51.000 Become a subscriber.

00:35:52.000 Come join the fun.

00:35:53.000 It is indeed a blast.

00:35:54.000 99 bucks a year also gets you this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels.

00:35:57.000 Go check it out right now.

00:35:58.000 Now, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:36:01.000 So again, as I mentioned, Democratic Agenda.

00:36:09.000 Focus on the Democratic agenda.

00:36:11.000 How has President Trump not tweeted out yet about Richard Engel, an Obama official, overtly saying he wants to overthrow the First Amendment in favor of a cadre of brilliant leftists figuring out what you can and cannot say.

00:36:21.000 And then, there are their economic takes.

00:36:23.000 There's an article by a guy named Steven Mim over at Bloomberg today, Bloomberg Economics, called, A Wealth Tax Could Deliver a Happiness Dividend.

00:36:32.000 You getting this?

00:36:33.000 So, the question is not whether the wealth tax is a good economic idea, whether it's constitutional, feasible, or anything.

00:36:39.000 It's that it will make people happy when you see that rich people are being punished.

00:36:42.000 I mean, for that matter, we could just put out some stocks in public, drag Bill Gates to them, and just sit him down in those things.

00:36:47.000 We can all throw rotten tomatoes at him.

00:36:48.000 It'd be super fun. 1.00

00:36:49.000 Basically, we could take the aristos, and we could put them in this thing called the guillotine, and we could just behead them to the cheers of the rabble. 0.99

00:36:56.000 That seems like that would also create a happiness dividend for the non-bourgeois. 0.99

00:37:02.000 For non-bourgeoisie.

00:37:05.000 According to Stephen Mim, tax-the-rich plans faced doubt about the amount of money they could raise.

00:37:09.000 But researchers say they dependably produce an emotional lift for society as a whole.

00:37:16.000 Oh, well, you know, so long as we pursue policies that are completely ineffective, and also punish wealth creation, but make people who were not involved in that wealth creation feel really good, we should totally do it.

00:37:29.000 In fact, we should hold public spankings. 1.00

00:37:30.000 And we need to bring Jeff Bezos out, and we need to get the paddle from fifth grade in 1972, and we need to whack Jeff Bezos around a few times.

00:37:38.000 Like, wouldn't that be fun?

00:37:38.000 Like, we could all have some fun with that, says Steven Mim.

00:37:42.000 When a study released earlier this month showed the wealthiest Americans paying a lower tax rate than any other group, Democratic presidential candidates embraced it as proof they were on the right track.

00:37:51.000 While their tax-the-rich proposals vowed to create a better economic balance, the candidates often pivot to what they would do with the proceeds—Medicare for All, student loan relief, infrastructure repair, other expensive programs.

00:38:00.000 Those equations have raised serious doubts, for good reason.

00:38:03.000 Turning tax revenue into a massive health care system or measurable economic growth is incredibly complicated, but Raising taxes on the wealthy could deliver something meaningful that millions of Americans would rather feel quickly.

00:38:15.000 Happiness.

00:38:16.000 Recent research found that progressive taxes may make the average citizen happier and more content.

00:38:21.000 In the course of their study, psychologists Shigeru Oishi and Kostatin Kuchlev of the University of Virginia and Ulrich Schimmack of the University of Toronto eschewed the usual debate over tax increases.

00:38:32.000 Are they bad for economic growth?

00:38:33.000 Instead, they focus on a more emotional one.

00:38:35.000 Do Americans feel happier and experience a greater sense of fairness under more progressive taxation?

00:38:41.000 And what they found is a very strong correlation between progressive tax policies and how happy respondents rated themselves.

00:38:46.000 This effect was most pronounced and statistically significant among taxpayers in the lowest 40% of incomes.

00:38:52.000 No!

00:38:52.000 You're kidding me!

00:38:53.000 You mean people who earn the least are really happy to see people who earn a lot of money punished publicly?

00:38:58.000 No, you mean the worst in human instinct is given free reign when you punish people for success?

00:39:04.000 The correlation steadily diminished among higher income groups, disappearing altogether for the top 40%.

00:39:08.000 By the way, this does reveal a certain truth, but it's not the truth that people on the left think it reveals.

00:39:13.000 So people on the left are like, well, that's because we have an innate sense of fairness.

00:39:15.000 When we see somebody who's rich and somebody who's poor, we immediately think that they should share the wealth, right?

00:39:20.000 I mean, it's like when you were a kid and there were two cookies and there were two of you and you need to share the cookies.

00:39:26.000 But what this actually reveals is that people who tend to get ahead in American society are people who are not spending their time focusing in on how much wealth other people are making.

00:39:34.000 They're spending their time building up businesses and trying to forge careers.

00:39:37.000 If you spend your time being jealous of people who have more wealth than you, believe me, there's an endless supply of people who have more wealth than you.

00:39:43.000 There are a lot of people who are richer than I am.

00:39:45.000 And five years ago, there were a lot more people than that who were richer than I was.

00:39:49.000 And you can either spend your time bitching about it, or you could spend your time going out and making the wealth. 0.98

00:39:53.000 And it's funny, this actually, look, it violates one of the 10 Commandments.

00:39:56.000 The 9th Commandment, which is, the 10th Commandment, you shall not covet thy neighbor's property.

00:40:02.000 Okay, the 10th Commandment is pretty specific about this.

00:40:05.000 In Jewish law, this doesn't mean that you're not allowed to covet the kind of thing your neighbor has.

00:40:10.000 If my neighbor has a Ferrari, and I'm like, God, that's an amazing car, I wish I had that car.

00:40:13.000 That is not a violation of the 10th Commandment.

00:40:15.000 It is a violation of the 10th Commandment if I say, I really want that car.

00:40:19.000 That's my car.

00:40:20.000 Right?

00:40:20.000 That sort of covetousness was always considered to be a vice under most classical traditions of virtue.

00:40:27.000 But we've put that aside.

00:40:28.000 Now it's, well, if you covet your neighbor's car, well then you should probably just go ahead and take it.

00:40:34.000 Or you should authorize the government to go ahead and take it.

00:40:35.000 And then you'll feel better.

00:40:36.000 Then you'll feel like...

00:40:38.000 There's the old Solomonic tale.

00:40:41.000 I'm only going back to the Bible here because the Judeo-Christian roots of our morality are pretty deeply embedded.

00:40:45.000 There's this old Solomonic tale that I'm sure you've all heard in which King Solomon is confronted with this bizarre case.

00:40:51.000 There are two women and they live in sort of an apartment complex and they both have babies at the same time and one of the women's babies dies and the other woman claims that and the other woman's baby lives and both women claim that the live baby is theirs and the dead baby is the baby of the other person.

00:41:08.000 And so Solomon calls forth one of his guards and he says, I want you to take this living baby and I want you to cut it in half.

00:41:14.000 And one of the mothers says, absolutely do it.

00:41:17.000 And the other mother says, no, give the baby to the other mom. 1.00

00:41:20.000 Better that the baby should live than that I should have the baby.

00:41:23.000 And Solomon says, obviously that one's the mother.

00:41:25.000 And when it comes to wealth, the same principle holds.

00:41:28.000 If you are into the division and destruction of wealth, simply because you are jealous that somebody else has some, you are doing decency, virtue, and economics wrong.

00:41:38.000 But apparently, what the left would like is a world where you feel better about yourself because somebody else has their wealth taken away.

00:41:43.000 So, they're not a fan of the First Amendment, they're not a fan of economic freedom.

00:41:46.000 How the right isn't honing in on this is simply beyond me, especially because again, these Democratic candidates are incredibly vulnerable on a variety of scores.

00:41:55.000 Democratic governance just, it just does not work.

00:41:58.000 Even the cases where Democrats suggest that the solution is bigger government, that's just not true.

00:42:02.000 Like right now, Democrats are busily suggesting that the situation in California, where PG&E, which is Pacific Gas and Electric, A semi-private company.

00:42:11.000 I'll explain why it's semi-private in just a second.

00:42:13.000 That PG&E is under severe flack because they've been shutting down their power grids because they haven't updated the power grids in like a hundred years.

00:42:19.000 This is leading Democrats to be like, we should nationalize the utilities.

00:42:22.000 This shows that profit-seeking companies are really, really bad.

00:42:25.000 But as the Wall Street Journal points out, in an article written by Alicia Finley, she says, PG&E exemplifies the left's stakeholder model, according to which businesses are accountable not only to shareholders, but also to workers, the environment, and local communities and society at large.

00:42:40.000 In California, utilities are the most heavily regulated businesses.

00:42:43.000 Their rates and return on equity are set by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

00:42:49.000 Every three years, PG&E must submit funding plans to the CPUC, which holds public hearings with quote-unquote stakeholders, including customers and activist groups.

00:42:58.000 The Commission and state legislature dictate energy investments.

00:43:01.000 State law requires utilities to obtain 60% of their power from renewable sources by 2030.

00:43:06.000 Plus, the Commission has ordered utilities to buy energy from homeowners with solar panels, meaning that they are paying a higher rate than wholesale power providers get.

00:43:14.000 Last year, the commission instructed PG&E to install 7,500 electric car charging stations at apartment buildings and workplaces.

00:43:23.000 So if shareholders want to earn a profit, they have to indulge their political masters' fashionable views on matters like climate, identity politics, and corporate governance.

00:43:31.000 The utility proclaims diversity and inclusion are integral to how we do business.

00:43:35.000 They talk about environmental justice, focusing in on low-income communities and communities of color.

00:43:41.000 Well, it turns out that when you heavily Regulate and subsidize businesses.

00:43:45.000 You basically made them into arms of the state.

00:43:49.000 The utility mainly donates to Democrats.

00:43:52.000 The Human Rights Campaign gave the utility a 100% rating on its Corporate Equality Index from 2003 to 2018.

00:44:00.000 Democrats have blasted PG&E for spending millions on political lobbying, but much of the advocacy has been in support of the state's climate goals, including consumer electric car-driven subsidies and fuel economy mandates.

00:44:11.000 So again, Democrats are ripping on the profit centers, supposedly, at these utilities, but this is just another case of bad Democratic governance.

00:44:17.000 So, here's the deal.

00:44:18.000 If you'd like a First Amendment governed by Richard Engel, if you'd like an economy governed by people who are mostly happy just to take down wealth, And if you are really into the kind of governance that led to PG&E shutting off the power on millions of customers in the last couple weeks in California, by all means elect a Democrat.

00:44:34.000 By all means, do this thing.

00:44:36.000 Because this is the world the Democrats want.

00:44:39.000 And after all the impeachment stuff is over, and again, the chances of Trump actually being removed from office are incredibly low, after all the impeachment stuff is over, the only thing that is going to matter is whether Is whether Americans prefer the governance of Democrats to the governance of President Trump.

00:44:56.000 So Republicans need to refocus and this is what they should be focusing on.

00:44:59.000 And they have a lot to focus on.

00:45:01.000 A lot to focus on.

00:45:02.000 Even Democrats are aware how weak their own candidates are at this point.

00:45:06.000 Like the New York Times has a full piece today lamenting the fact that no top tier Democrats In the 2020 race are minorities.

00:45:12.000 They're blaming implicit bias among Democrats.

00:45:14.000 Apparently Democrats are secret racists for not liking Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.

00:45:19.000 But their front-running candidates are in a world of hurt.

00:45:23.000 They're just not good candidates.

00:45:24.000 So let's take an example.

00:45:24.000 Elizabeth Warren right now is widely perceived to be the front-runner for the nomination.

00:45:28.000 Well, Elizabeth Warren is being now called out for her corporate cronyism for years. 1.00

00:45:33.000 She was taking something like half a million dollars from major corporations, particularly one company named LTV Steel, which we talked about yesterday on the podcast, in which the New York Times dived into Warren's previous work for LTV.

00:45:46.000 They said, to settle a coal miner strike, the federal government forged an agreement that miners would have health care coverage when they retired, provided by their last employer.

00:45:53.000 And then, LTV went bankrupt and they stopped paying.

00:45:58.000 LTV objected.

00:45:59.000 So, called in to defend all of this was Elizabeth Warren.

00:46:03.000 She joined the company's legal team in 1995.

00:46:07.000 And then she proceeded to rip on LTV. 1.00

00:46:09.000 In 2006, here's Elizabeth Warren, 11 years later, ripping on the very company that she actually represented in the bankruptcy hearings, deriding LTV's bankruptcy as the epitome of broken promises to workers, according to Tommy Christopher over at Mediaite. 0.94

00:46:22.000 Because what's happened...

00:46:24.000 Is now it's time to pay the piper.

00:46:26.000 LTV is just the first of many that we're going to see along these lines.

00:46:29.000 Where the question is what happens to all those promises you made to the employees when this steel business simply will not support that kind of payment.

00:46:37.000 LTV showed how you could lock up all the assets so that essentially the company could say We're broke.

00:46:47.000 The cupboard's bare.

00:46:48.000 There's nothing here.

00:46:50.000 And use those assets, put them back into operation to create a newer, more profitable company.

00:46:58.000 Weird, that's a company she repped in 1995.

00:47:01.000 Very odd, it's almost as though she's wildly dishonest.

00:47:03.000 Which leaves it to people like John Legend to talk about the reason why people are not getting behind Elizabeth Warren is because men feel threatened by women.

00:47:11.000 John Legend, political commentator.

00:47:13.000 So just, what a delight.

00:47:16.000 What a delight.

00:47:17.000 He says, why do men feel threatened by women?

00:47:19.000 She's the best candidate running today, is Elizabeth Warren. 0.99

00:47:23.000 Sure, I'm sure this is all about men feeling threatened by women. 0.50

00:47:27.000 And Legend said, And Chrissy Teigen, his wife, said, Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

00:47:30.000 It can't be that Elizabeth Warren is wildly dishonest. 0.78

00:47:32.000 You see someone as transparently competent and eloquent and on fire as Elizabeth Warren.

00:47:35.000 And then you hear some guys just are not into voting for a woman.

00:47:37.000 Why do guys feel so threatened by the idea of a woman president?

00:47:40.000 And Chrissy Teigen, his wife said, our men sees because there's 10 days a month where we're just going to war.

00:47:44.000 Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

00:47:45.000 It can't be that Elizabeth Warren is wildly dishonest. 0.78

00:47:48.000 It can't be that at all. 0.99

00:47:50.000 What a bunch of nonsense. 0.93

00:47:53.000 By the way, if you thought Bernie Sanders is honest, he's not honest either. 0.77

00:47:57.000 So I've said he's the most honest of the Democratic candidates.

00:47:59.000 That doesn't mean he's actually honest.

00:48:00.000 Bernie Sanders yesterday was asked about his plan to pay for Medicare for all.

00:48:03.000 He's like, I'm not going to show you that plan.

00:48:05.000 Why would I show you the plan to pay for this thing? 1.00

00:48:07.000 We all know we're going to kill the rich people and eat them. 0.99

00:48:09.000 That's where this money is coming from. 0.96

00:48:11.000 The fight right now is to get the American people To understand that we're spending twice as much per capita, that of course we can pay for it.

00:48:19.000 We're paying it now in a very reactionary, regressive way.

00:48:23.000 I want to pay for it in a progressive way.

00:48:24.000 Now you're asking me to come up with an exact, detailed plan of how, you know, every American, how much you're going to pay more in taxes, how much I'm going to pay.

00:48:32.000 I don't think I have to do that right now.

00:48:34.000 Okay, so yeah, he doesn't have to do it.

00:48:35.000 He's just not going to explain the plan.

00:48:37.000 There's so much rich material for Republicans.

00:48:39.000 What they have to do is get past this impeachment thing.

00:48:41.000 What that means is what they should be doing right now is just shutting up.

00:48:44.000 Seriously, I understand that Trump is clamoring for them to be shouting from the rooftops about impeachment is a hoax and it's a witch hunt and all of this stuff.

00:48:53.000 What Republicans should do is basically the same thing they did during the Mueller investigation.

00:48:56.000 This is what they did.

00:48:57.000 They just said, okay, we'll wait for all of it to come out, and then we'll make a judgment.

00:49:01.000 Because the Democrats are gonna do it anyway.

00:49:02.000 And the more focus is brought to the impeachment stuff, the worse it is for Republicans.

00:49:06.000 Just on a public relations level, what you actually want is for the Republicans to say, okay, bring all this stuff forth, we'll hear it all, and then we'll make a decision.

00:49:14.000 In all likelihood, it's...

00:49:15.000 Like it would be very difficult to imagine a situation in which you get a majority Republican Senate to vote for Trump's impeachment. 0.96

00:49:21.000 And meanwhile, focus in on the fact that these 2020 Democrats are insane.

00:49:24.000 They spent the last 48 hours appealing to J Street, which is a front group for anti-Israel sources.

00:49:29.000 I mean, it's just, it's, it's astonishing to me that the, the personality whims of the president, right?

00:49:36.000 He wants everybody out there.

00:49:38.000 On the front lines, cheering and pouring hot oil and all of this about impeachment, when the information isn't out there yet, it's not going to be to his benefit.

00:49:46.000 Someone has to say no.

00:49:48.000 Here's what we should be talking about, because there's plenty to talk about on the other side of the aisle.

00:49:52.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate, and then a quick thing that I like, and we will get out of here.

00:49:56.000 In fact, let's do things I like first.

00:49:58.000 So, a couple of things that I like.

00:50:00.000 First of all, the NCAA has made a good decision that I've been calling for for a long time, that is to allow The student-athletes to capitalize on their own image.

00:50:09.000 Frankly, it was an absurdity that student-athletes were not allowed to do this.

00:50:12.000 That it was treated as though when Zion Williamson was a Duke, that Zion Williamson was getting the benefit of a Duke education, and that is why he shouldn't be able to capitalize on his image, but the NCAA should.

00:50:23.000 That was just, it was ridiculous.

00:50:25.000 Okay, Zion Williamson wasn't there to get his degree in business management.

00:50:28.000 Zion Williamson was there to play basketball and then move on to the NBA.

00:50:32.000 Which is why there are so many people in college basketball who are doing this one-and-done routine.

00:50:36.000 And they're going in for a year, or they go in for two years, and then they go directly to the NBA.

00:50:39.000 By the way, they should totally do that.

00:50:41.000 If you have a skill set, I'm not a believer that you have to stay in college just to stay in college.

00:50:46.000 If it worked for Bill Gates, why shouldn't it work for Zion Williamson?

00:50:50.000 I've always thought it's bizarre that people are so concerned.

00:50:52.000 And when people talk about implicit bias, I've always thought it's very bizarre.

00:50:55.000 People are very concerned about how many basketball players go to college, as opposed to, for example, how many baseball players go to college.

00:51:01.000 And the answer is a lot of baseball players go direct high school to the minor leagues.

00:51:04.000 Now, if you want to go into a college basketball If you want to go into the NCAA to get prepped for a year or two for your own benefit, that seems reasonable to me.

00:51:13.000 But it also seems more than reasonable that you should be able to own your own image.

00:51:17.000 You shouldn't forfeit that right simply because you play college basketball. 0.95

00:51:21.000 It's really silly. 0.94

00:51:21.000 The whole division between amateur and professional is really quite ridiculous in this context. 0.94

00:51:25.000 Let's be real about this.

00:51:26.000 Duke uses people like Zion Williamson as an actual professional athlete.

00:51:31.000 They make money off Zion Williamson.

00:51:33.000 There is money from Zion Williamson.

00:51:34.000 There's no reason why Zion Williamson shouldn't make money off his own image while he's in college.

00:51:37.000 So I'm glad the NCAA has changed that rule.

00:51:39.000 Other things that I like.

00:51:40.000 So this is just hilarious.

00:51:41.000 President Trump...

00:51:43.000 Was greeted by a kid dressed as one of the minions from Despicable Me.

00:51:48.000 So was Melania.

00:51:49.000 And he obviously didn't know what to do.

00:51:51.000 And so he was handing the kid candy, and he and Melania take candy and put it on the head of the minion.

00:51:58.000 This little kid who's walking around in a minion costume.

00:52:00.000 It's pretty funny.

00:52:01.000 Here's what it looked like.

00:52:03.000 Okay, so there is President Trump, Melania, here comes one of these kids dressed as a minion, and Trump takes a candy bar and puts it on the head of the minion, and then Melania does the same thing and promptly slides off while the kid reaches for it.

00:52:14.000 You could've just put it in the bag.

00:52:16.000 Like, you could've just... Solid stuff.

00:52:22.000 Solid stuff right there.

00:52:24.000 Okay, time for a couple of quick things that I hate.

00:52:30.000 Okay, so, I need to read you these new lyrics.

00:52:32.000 So now, we've been told that Baby, It's Cold Outside is quite, quite bad.

00:52:38.000 Very bad.

00:52:39.000 Very not-me-too.

00:52:40.000 Very awful.

00:52:42.000 So now, Kelly Clarkson and John Legend have redone Baby, It's Cold Outside.

00:52:47.000 Because It was a rapey song, right?

00:52:49.000 It was rapey because he was trying to get this woman into bed, and she kept talking about how she wanted to go, but she was worn by the fire. 0.89

00:52:56.000 And except for, you know, every human relationship which has vagaries of wooing, We're all supposed to believe that he's trying to date rape her, right?

00:53:07.000 The whole argument is about a man trying to wheedle a woman into bed, which has never happened in the history of man, by the way.

00:53:11.000 No man has ever wheedled a woman into bed. 0.91

00:53:13.000 Normally, when you have sex with a girl, the way that it works is that you actually get out a contract, notarized by your attorney, and then you have her check particular boxes as to which activities she would seek to participate in.

00:53:22.000 That's not sufficient.

00:53:23.000 You then have to stop before each step and make sure that she is still okay with it, right?

00:53:26.000 You need affirmative consent.

00:53:28.000 In California, they've been trying to pass this yes-means-yes law for years, in which you actually have to get, quote-unquote, affirmative consent.

00:53:33.000 It's not enough for a woman to enthusiastically participate in the event. 1.00

00:53:35.000 You have to get affirmative verbal consent for each step, which is just hot, man.

00:53:39.000 I mean, there is nothing quite as hot as, do you mind if I do exactly this?

00:53:44.000 And then you're like, I consent.

00:53:46.000 I mean, that is some sexy stuff.

00:53:47.000 So, maybe it's cold outside.

00:53:50.000 is just a clever song about a man and a woman and the man wooing the woman.

00:53:55.000 And it is like, this is, here's the part where people get really uptight.

00:54:01.000 The woman sings, I ought to say no, no, no, sir. 1.00

00:54:04.000 Because women have never said that before, ever. 0.74

00:54:06.000 Women have never said that they ought to say no, but their heart says yes.

00:54:09.000 That's never happened in the history of mankind.

00:54:11.000 It's not how 75% of pregnancies in the history of mankind have ever happened.

00:54:15.000 And then the man says, she says, my sister will be suspicious, and he sings, gosh, your lips look delicious.

00:54:20.000 And then she says, say, what's in this drink?

00:54:22.000 Now, people read that as like he's drugging her, or alternatively, she is trying to make excuses for the fact that she actually wants to stay, and that she's lightheaded and woozy, and that really she's in love with the guy, right?

00:54:33.000 Maybe that's what the song is about.

00:54:34.000 In any case, they've now redone the lyrics and made them significantly worse.

00:54:38.000 Okay, so Kelly Clarkson and John Legend have made this, because We have to take everything incredibly seriously, and we have to assume.

00:54:45.000 I do love that we're supposed to believe the baby, it's cold outside, leads to a vast women-hating culture of rape.

00:54:50.000 But rap lyrics do not. 0.98

00:54:54.000 Right, we're not gonna rewrite any of the bitch and ho lyrics from rap. 1.00

00:54:57.000 Not gonna rewrite any of that stuff, because that's, I mean, come on. 0.86

00:55:00.000 Why would we do that?

00:55:01.000 That's just, that's just a part of America's rich musical lexicon.

00:55:04.000 But baby, it's cold outside.

00:55:06.000 I can't tell you how many times serial rapists like Harvey Weinstein hit the button, baby, it's cold outside comes on, and he immediately just goes out and does his thing. 0.61

00:55:13.000 Like, what?

00:55:14.000 Okay, so here is the new lyric.

00:55:16.000 In the reimagined version, Clarkson sings, quote, I've got to go away.

00:55:20.000 And Legend responds, I can call you a ride.

00:55:25.000 Hot, sexy, sexy.

00:55:27.000 And then Clarkson sings, what will my friends think?

00:55:30.000 And Legend says, I think they should rejoice.

00:55:32.000 And she says, if I have one more drink.

00:55:34.000 And he says, it's your body, your choice.

00:55:37.000 Oh, just that sizzles, doesn't it?

00:55:40.000 It's your body, your choice.

00:55:41.000 Abortion slogans in the middle of a wooing session.

00:55:45.000 Hot.

00:55:46.000 The new lyrics were written by Legend and the comedian Natasha Rothwell of Insecure. 0.96

00:55:51.000 It's just ridiculous. 0.98

00:55:53.000 It's just ridiculous. 0.91

00:55:54.000 A San Francisco station that dropped the song last year reversed course after most listeners said they wanted the song in rotation.

00:56:01.000 Susan Lesser, who is the daughter of Frank Lesser, one of the great songwriters in American history, he's responsible for all the songs in Guys and Dolls, he's responsible for The Most Happy Fellow, a lot of great American musicals written by Frank Lesser, one of the great songwriters in American history.

00:56:14.000 Susan Lesser said, way before Me Too, I would hear from time to time people call it a date rape song. 1.00

00:56:18.000 I would get annoyed because it's a song my dad wrote for him and my mother to sing at parties.

00:56:22.000 She says, people used to say, what's in this drink, as a joke.

00:56:24.000 She went on.

00:56:25.000 You know, this drink is going straight to my head, so what's in this drink?

00:56:27.000 Back then, it didn't mean you drugged me.

00:56:29.000 Correct.

00:56:30.000 Correct.

00:56:31.000 Nobody was taught, that's not a roofie song.

00:56:34.000 It's so absurd.

00:56:37.000 Like, really, John Legend and Kelly Clarkson, It's Your Body, You're Trying, those lyrics.

00:56:42.000 I can call you a ride.

00:56:45.000 Your Uber's outside.

00:56:46.000 Like, what?

00:56:50.000 Okay, you guys, you're taking things too seriously.

00:56:53.000 You're taking things much, much, much too seriously.

00:56:54.000 But the good news is Richard Engel wants to outlaw the song, presumably, as a form of hate speech.

00:56:58.000 So I think these are the people who we should have in charge of our fundamental debates about the nature of speech, or people who think that, baby, it's cold outside is a real problem, but the lyrics of Jay-Z are not only acceptable, but absolutely praiseworthy.

00:57:12.000 Great American figures include Snoop Dogg and his lyrics, but Frank Lesser, rapey, super rapey. 0.99

00:57:20.000 Yeah, or everybody's just full of crap. 0.99

00:57:21.000 One of those two things. 0.99

00:57:22.000 Okay, one final thing that I hate.

00:57:24.000 So, the far-left is insane on the topic of Israel, and they are fully willing to go anti-Semitic on it.

00:57:32.000 A Students for Justice in Palestine member. 0.62

00:57:36.000 This is a far-left, anti-Israel, Israel-hating, terror-supporting group, the SJP.

00:57:42.000 They are not students, they are not for justice, and they're not for peace.

00:57:45.000 The only part of that The only part of their title that means anything is the Palestine part.

00:57:50.000 An activist confronted a holocaust survivor.

00:57:52.000 So the holocaust survivor was a defender of Israel.

00:57:54.000 You know why?

00:57:55.000 Because a lot of Jews in the aftermath of that, like particularly holocaust survivors, tend to be supporters of Israel.

00:58:00.000 Can you think of a reason why maybe holocaust survivors tend to be supporters of Israel?

00:58:06.000 Like maybe the fact that during the holocaust every country closed its doors to Jews attempting to escape Nazi Germany, including British Mandate Palestine, and that the establishment of a Jewish state means that will never happen again.

00:58:16.000 Maybe that's the reason why Holocaust survivors are sort of supporters of Israel in heavy measure. 0.77

00:58:20.000 Well, an SJP activist, whose greatest hardship has been that one time their iPhone broke, confronts a Holocaust survivor about Palestinian ethnic cleansing by the Jewish state.

00:58:30.000 Now, let me just be clear.

00:58:31.000 I'm in Israel right now.

00:58:32.000 I cannot think of a larger lie than the idea that Israel is performing ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.

00:58:40.000 You have to be out of your mind to believe this.

00:58:42.000 There's some, what, four to five million Palestinians living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza?

00:58:47.000 Okay, so that's a horrible job of ethnic cleansing, Israel. 0.76

00:58:50.000 Terrible, terrible job. 0.75

00:58:50.000 It turns out that Palestinians are reproducing at a much faster rate than Jews and have been for decades at this point. 0.75

00:58:57.000 Their cities are growing.

00:58:57.000 By the way, the cities are kind of nice.

00:58:59.000 I mean, I've driven past a bunch of them.

00:59:01.000 They look a lot better than they did.

00:59:02.000 I was last here in 2001.

00:59:03.000 The cities at that point did not look very good.

00:59:05.000 A lot of these cities are brand new.

00:59:07.000 A lot of them look quite beautiful.

00:59:09.000 The city of Hebron, which is a major Palestinian center, 215,000 Palestinians, has like a mall with a KFC.

00:59:18.000 A lot of the stuff that you're told about the inherent poverty that's happening here is just not true.

00:59:22.000 There is no ethnic cleansing going on, but here is a Students in Justice in Palestine activist confronting a Holocaust survivor, virtue signaling all over somebody who survived Hitler.

00:59:30.000 Because the establishment of the Israeli state and the idea of Zionism ties back to the right of the Israeli state at any cost. 0.75

00:59:40.000 And that cost is the Palestinian people. 1.00

00:59:42.000 I am a result of experiences that you've been through.

00:59:46.000 I am a survivor of the Intifada, and that is way after 1948 when the Palestinian land was occupied.

00:59:53.000 I went through minimal amounts of things that the Palestinian people historically went through, and I'm asking you, and it's disappointing to know that a Holocaust survivor would remain neutral in a situation of injustice.

01:00:06.000 It's not a matter of neutral, it's a matter of, I think the two sides have to really, who are much more experienced than I, it's not Total guilt and innocence on either side.

01:00:19.000 Is that my feeling?

01:00:22.000 And also that there are people who are much more expert in this and I always feel that I shouldn't...

01:00:28.000 Okay, so she's accusing him of backing ethnic cleansing, and it's, it's fully insane.

01:00:33.000 Okay, the claims that she is making there, by the way, that she's a survivor of the Intifada, you know who the Intifada was declared by?

01:00:37.000 Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians.

01:00:38.000 It wasn't Israel that declared the Intifada.

01:00:40.000 If you're a survivor of the Intifada, you might want to blame the Palestinian leadership, which turned down the best peace deal they will ever receive from Ehud Barak, including the division of Jerusalem, and then instead opted for a massive outbreak of violence ending in the death of thousands of Palestinians and thousands of Jews as well.

01:00:57.000 So, yeah, this sort of nonsense, the fact that the left gives credence to it demonstrates how many lives they're willing to buy into in the name of social justice warrior wokeness.

01:01:07.000 Okay, we'll be back here later to deal with two additional hours of content.

01:01:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:01:10.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:01:15.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

01:01:18.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

01:01:19.000 Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:01:21.000 Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.

01:01:23.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.

01:01:25.000 And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

01:01:28.000 Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.

01:01:30.000 Edited by Adam Siovitz.

01:01:32.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:01:33.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

01:01:35.000 Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.

01:01:37.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:01:39.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

01:01:41.000 On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.

01:01:44.000 We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

The Ben Shapiro Show - October 30, 2019

Democrats' Magical Impeachment Misdirection | Ep. 886

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript