The Ben Shapiro Show - Ep. 48 - When Is Armed Resistance The Right Response?

00:00:00.000 Here we are.

00:00:01.000 We're back.

00:00:02.000 It's a brand new year.

00:00:03.000 There's so much going on.

00:00:04.000 We'll get to things I like, things that I hate.

00:00:06.000 I'll tell you how I spent my New Year's Eve.

00:00:09.000 It was boring.

00:00:10.000 And I'll also get to all of the news, but there's so much to talk about.

00:00:13.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:13.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:23.000 We're back, and I know you're all depressed.

00:00:25.000 I'm depressed too.

00:00:26.000 I mean, it's just depressing to be back, but I know that there are lots of you who are waiting for the show to come back, and whoopee!

00:00:31.000 We're here, and there's gonna be a full year of shows.

00:00:35.000 There'll be many years of shows, we hope.

00:00:37.000 Thanks to all the people

00:00:38.000 By the way, who do download the show, you can go to dailywired.com, and if you want to subscribe, buy yourself a New Year's subscription.

00:00:44.000 That should be a resolution for you, because we look great.

00:00:46.000 Not just me, the whole set looks great, although particularly me, I look great.

00:00:49.000 But make sure that you subscribe, because we do appreciate your subscribership, and it's what helps fund this entire program, and that's wonderful.

00:00:58.000 We do have, I think we're verging on 15,000 listeners for each episode now, so we're definitely

00:01:04.000 We're definitely increasing the number of people who listen, and that's really without us pushing it too hard.

00:01:08.000 So we're going to start pushing it this year.

00:01:10.000 It's going to really expand by leaps and bounds, and you're part of it.

00:01:12.000 You're on the ground floor, so it's great to have you along for the ride.

00:01:16.000 Okay, so the big news story.

00:01:17.000 There are a couple big news stories that lead off the year.

00:01:19.000 First of all, we'll do a quick recap of where we are in terms of the polling, because we are now less than a month away from Iowa.

00:01:25.000 Donald Trump is still running neck and neck with Ted Cruz in Iowa.

00:01:29.000 Cruz in the latest polls tends to be up in Iowa.

00:01:31.000 Cruz will probably win Iowa.

00:01:33.000 Trump is still leading in New Hampshire.

00:01:35.000 Cruz and Rubio and Kasich and Bush and Chris Christie are all tied together at second.

00:01:41.000 They're all within margin of error in second place in Iowa.

00:01:44.000 And so how this whole thing ends up going down is going to come down very much to, can they consolidate any sort of base of support behind Rubio in New Hampshire?

00:01:54.000 If the answer is no, if the answer is no, then probably Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will end up winning the nomination.

00:02:00.000 If the answer is yes, if somehow Marco Rubio pulls out a victory or a second place finish in New Hampshire, then this is gonna be a three-way race all the way to the end.

00:02:09.000 Quick rule of thumb, as far as this election cycle goes,

00:02:13.000 Don't pay any attention to the national polling.

00:02:15.000 The national polling makes no difference.

00:02:16.000 At this point in the national polling in 2008, Rudy Giuliani was leading the way.

00:02:20.000 At this point in national polling in 2004, on the Democratic side, Wesley Clark was leading the way.

00:02:25.000 So national polls don't mean anything.

00:02:27.000 The only polls that mean something are the primary polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and really more specifically in Iowa, because the polls in New Hampshire will move after we find out what happens in Iowa.

00:02:37.000 So keep your eye there.

00:02:38.000 And we'll get to

00:02:39.000 More election news.

00:02:40.000 Trump versus Hillary.

00:02:41.000 That's become the big battle.

00:02:42.000 We'll get to that in just a little while.

00:02:44.000 We will also get to, in just a little while, a new ISIS recruitment video, which reinforces something I said late last year, which is that the Obama administration has been the best recruiting tool that ISIS ever had.

00:02:54.000 ISIS is using all of the propaganda points of the Obama administration to recruit.

00:02:59.000 So there's a new ISIS video that apparently shows Donald Trump today, but there's a difference between how ISIS videos treat Trump and how they treat Obama.

00:03:07.000 In ISIS videos of Trump,

00:03:08.000 Trump is the enemy. 0.66

00:03:09.000 Trump is the bad guy. 0.98

00:03:10.000 Trump is the guy we're gonna fight.

00:03:11.000 In ISIS videos where Obama's in them, Obama's just evidence that they can win, right? 0.91

00:03:16.000 Obama's not somebody that they can fight.

00:03:18.000 Obama's somebody they can win, right? 0.99

00:03:19.000 Trump is the big bad guy who they're gonna fight, but Obama is the guy who's a coward and runs away and gives them the impetus to fight. 0.84

00:03:26.000 And when they repeat political points, they're always mirroring the political points of the left. 0.97

00:03:29.000 America is weak. 0.98

00:03:30.000 America is racist. 1.00

00:03:32.000 America is terrible. 1.00

00:03:33.000 America is exploitative. 0.94

00:03:35.000 And we have an ISIS video that shows exactly that, so we'll get to that as well.

00:03:38.000 But I want to start with the situation up in Oregon, because it really is quite telling.

00:03:42.000 The situation up in Oregon, for people who have missed what's going on up in Oregon, you should take a closer look at what's happening in Oregon.

00:03:51.000 Sorry, before it's...

00:03:52.000 We're good to go.

00:04:08.000 Stephen is the son, Dwight is the father, Dwight is 73, and Stephen is 48?

00:04:11.000 I think?

00:04:13.000 I think he's in his mid-40s?

00:04:15.000 But in any case, the two of them are now going to jail.

00:04:18.000 And this has driven an enormous amount of media scrutiny and media attention, because Cliven Bundy, you remember Cliven Bundy?

00:04:24.000 Back in 2014, Cliven Bundy was a rancher who had a run-in with the Bureau of Land Management with the federal government, and he refused to pay fines that the federal government wanted him to pay.

00:04:34.000 And so a bunch of militiamen came and stationed themselves around the SWAT teams with their guns drawn, presumably ready to shoot people, and it was an armed standoff.

00:04:43.000 That was happening in the middle of the desert between the federal government and this one rancher.

00:04:47.000 Well, now the Bundy family is getting active in this Hammond case.

00:04:50.000 So let's first explain the background of the Hammond case, because you're going to hear today a lot of misinformation about what exactly is going on in Oregon.

00:04:57.000 The first thing is you're seeing this hashtag trend on Twitter, Oregon under attack.

00:05:02.000 Okay, Oregon is not under attack.

00:05:04.000 Okay, Oregon, the state government will live, the federal government will live, no one is going to be killed.

00:05:08.000 You know, when they say hashtag Oregon under attack, they're not looting

00:05:12.000 So, we'll talk about the Bundy's behavior in a second, because that's what the media want us to focus on.

00:05:16.000 And it is interesting.

00:05:17.000 But I want to focus first on the Hammonds.

00:05:40.000 Should you have sympathy for this rancher family that the Bundys are now expressing support for? 0.61

00:05:46.000 And the answer is yes, you really should.

00:05:48.000 You should have a great deal of sympathy for the Hammond family because they are just a microcosm of the growing power of the federal government and how it's going to touch off actual violent conflagration sooner or later, probably sooner.

00:05:59.000 Over the break, you may have missed it, but the Klein family, these two bakers from Oregon,

00:06:05.000 This is the family, the religious Christian family with seven kids, and they didn't want to cater a lesbian wedding. 0.99

00:06:10.000 They didn't want to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding. 1.00

00:06:12.000 They were fined $140,000 by the state of Oregon for not catering the lesbian wedding.

00:06:17.000 They were fined and then they were sued by the lesbian couple for pain and suffering, which is insane.

00:06:22.000 And they were given $140,000 judgment against them.

00:06:24.000 They ponied up the dough so that they could file their appeals.

00:06:27.000 So basically a Christian family is now at point of gun being forced to pay enormous sums of money

00:06:32.000 So that they don't have to cater a lesbian wedding, and if they do it again, presumably they'll be put out of business. 1.00

00:06:37.000 So keep that in mind when we talk about what's happening with the Hammonds.

00:06:40.000 So here's what's happening with the Hammonds.

00:06:41.000 The Hammonds are an old ranching family in Oregon.

00:06:44.000 Now the Bureau of Land Management, the federal government, controls a huge swath of territory in the western United States.

00:06:51.000 In the eastern United States, most land is privately held.

00:06:54.000 It's not owned by the federal government.

00:06:55.000 If it is owned by the government, it's owned by the state government.

00:06:59.000 State ownership of land is the rule, not the exception under the Constitution of the United States.

00:07:04.000 I mean state versus federal.

00:07:05.000 The way that it works under the Constitution is that there are only really two provisions dealing with federal ownership of land.

00:07:11.000 One is in Article 1 with regard to the legislature and what Congress can do to buy land.

00:07:15.000 And the second is with regard to Article 4.

00:07:18.000 There's a provision in Article 4 of the Constitution talking about how the federal government can treat the land that it owns.

00:07:24.000 Can the federal government just confiscate land from a state?

00:07:26.000 The federal government cannot do that under the Constitution of the United States.

00:07:30.000 Well, regardless of that, the Bureau of Land Management controls, these percentages are really quite stunning, 84.5% of all land in Nevada is controlled or owned by the federal government.

00:07:41.000 Right?

00:07:42.000 85% of all land in the state of Nevada is controlled by the federal government.

00:07:45.000 53% of all land in Oregon is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, meaning they own all of that land.

00:07:51.000 And even in California, nearly 50% of all land in the state of California is controlled by the federal government, and specifically, the Bureau of Land Management.

00:07:59.000 Well, because the federal government controls all of this territory, it says it does so for environmental reasons.

00:08:04.000 We're all gonna die unless the federal government controls all of this territory to protect the birdies and the beads and such.

00:08:11.000 What's happening in Oregon, and this has been happening in Nevada too, is that the federal government wants to expand its ownership of land.

00:08:18.000 It's not enough for them to own 85% of Nevada or 53% of Oregon.

00:08:22.000 They want to own more.

00:08:23.000 So what they've been doing is they've been going and buying up all the land around particular ranchers, land that used to be privately held, and then they are restricting the land use for the ranchers who remain.

00:08:35.000 So if you're a rancher, your cows need to be able to graze in surrounding fields.

00:08:41.000 Most of the time when you see cows grazing, many states, I think a majority of states, a large number of states in any case, many states have rules that say your cows can graze outside of your land on public property because obviously they're not going to do much damage, they're just eating grass and we have an interest in cows being able to graze off land, we don't want you to have to buy thousands and thousands of acres just to feed your cattle.

00:09:02.000 You know, buy your cattle, keep your cattle on your land, make sure you gather your cattle back to you so they don't damage the environment too much, but they're allowed to graze.

00:09:09.000 Free grazing has been a rule, not the exception, in the United States since the founding of the United States.

00:09:14.000 Well, what the federal government has been doing is they've been buying up all the fields around the Hammons' estate, their farm, and then they've been restricting their access to water and they've been restricting their access to the grass.

00:09:25.000 So they've forced them out of the cattle business and they've been trying to restrict their access to water.

00:09:31.000 And they've been doing this with a lot of ranchers

00:09:33.000 We're good to go.

00:09:54.000 All right.

00:10:13.000 The Hammonds have been convicted in 2001 and 2006.

00:10:15.000 They were convicted for two arson offenses, which we'll discuss in a moment.

00:10:19.000 In their plea bargain in 2012, their plea bargain, one of the provisions of the plea bargain was that if the Hammonds had to sell their property, the right of first refusal went to the federal government.

00:10:31.000 Now think about that for a second.

00:10:32.000 Normally when you have a plea bargain, and as somebody who's worked in criminal law a little bit, I did a summer with the Los Angeles District Attorney, when you do a plea bargain, you're typically bargaining that you will serve a given sentence, and you won't take us to court, right?

00:10:45.000 We won't go through the rigmarole of a trial, and we won't have to drag in witnesses, and maybe you'll give up testimony on somebody else, and we will, in turn, reduce your sentence, right?

00:10:53.000 That's usually the deal that's cut.

00:10:55.000 I've never heard of a plea bargain before where the federal government got to buy your stuff.

00:11:00.000 That's kind of a shocking plea bargain.

00:11:01.000 Imagine, for example, that you killed somebody and the federal government came in to do a deal with you and they said, OK, we're not going to go death penalty, we're going to go life sentence on the condition that you sell us your house.

00:11:11.000 Right?

00:11:11.000 Wouldn't you think that that's kind of weird?

00:11:13.000 And wouldn't it suggest sort of that they were trumping up the charges just to get your house?

00:11:17.000 Well, that's sort of what happened here.

00:11:19.000 In 2012, the federal government had a provision inserted in the plea bargain that says that the Hammonds, if they sell, have to sell to the federal government.

00:11:26.000 So why were the Hammonds convicted?

00:11:27.000 In 2001,

00:11:29.000 And the Hammonds initiated a burn on their property.

00:11:31.000 This is something that ranchers and farmers apparently often do. 0.61

00:11:34.000 They have to burn out bad crops.

00:11:36.000 So if there's not even bad crops, bad plants.

00:11:39.000 Apparently there are juniper trees and various other types of weeds that are growing up around the property.

00:11:44.000 And these are succulents.

00:11:45.000 They suck up all the water. 0.99

00:11:46.000 They take as much water as possible.

00:11:48.000 We're good to go!

00:12:17.000 As anybody who's ever lit a match knows, ash doesn't light, right?

00:12:20.000 Once you've burned the match, you can't relight the same match.

00:12:23.000 It only burns fresh wood.

00:12:24.000 So you do a backburn.

00:12:25.000 You burn parts of your own property so that the fire won't rage out of control, escape its lines, and come onto your property.

00:12:31.000 So they did a backburn.

00:12:32.000 They proceeded to accidentally burn one acre of federal property.

00:12:36.000 And again, they were brought... criminal charges were brought against them for arson.

00:12:41.000 Now, all of that would be kind of questionable.

00:12:44.000 What makes it super-duper questionable is that the federal government, when they brought the charges, they brought the charges under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

00:12:52.000 They didn't bring it under just federal arson charges.

00:12:56.000 They brought it under an Anti-Terrorism Act.

00:12:58.000 An Anti-Terrorism Act that has, as its standard, its criminal penalty standard, a mandatory minimum of five years in prison.

00:13:06.000 Right, so for burning your own property and then it gets out of control a little bit and burns some worthless land and we expend no resources, the federal government wanted to put both these guys away for five years.

00:13:17.000 Well, the judge in that particular case, he said, and there's a quote from the judge in that case, he says,

00:13:21.000 With regard to character letters and that sort of thing, they were tremendous.

00:13:24.000 These people have been salt in their community and liked, and I appreciate that.

00:13:28.000 I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum, because to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.

00:13:38.000 And with regard to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

00:13:43.000 This sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.

00:13:46.000 In other words, he's saying that that anti-terrorism act, the arson provision, was designed for, for example, we've had suspicions that some of the California wildfires were set by terrorists.

00:13:55.000 That was the idea.

00:13:55.000 It was for that.

00:13:56.000 It wasn't for a rancher who sets a fire on his own property, it goes out of control, burns a little bit of land on federal property, and no harm is done.

00:14:03.000 Right?

00:14:03.000 It was not intended for that.

00:14:04.000 Well, the 9th Circuit, the prosecutors,

00:14:06.000 Because the prosecutors wanted to make an example of the Hammonds for having the temerity to try and ranch near federal property, they decided that they were going to appeal the judge's decision.

00:14:15.000 The judge sentenced one of them to three months and one of them to a year after they had completed their sentence.

00:14:21.000 After they completed their sentence, the prosecutors then went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, appealed the judge's decision, and said the mandatory minimum is five years.

00:14:28.000 We want them back in prison for another four years and four years, nine months respectively.

00:14:33.000 And they won.

00:14:34.000 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal said, OK, we're going to put these people back in prison.

00:14:37.000 They'd already been in prison.

00:14:38.000 We're going to put them back in prison now. 0.99

00:14:40.000 Right?

00:14:40.000 That's what this is really about.

00:14:42.000 And the Oregon Farm Bureau, again, a lot of this is specifically designed to prevent the farm from running so that the federal government can buy it.

00:14:50.000 The Hammonds are supposed to pay a grand total of $400,000 to the federal government.

00:14:54.000 We're good to go.

00:15:13.000 It is hypocritical, given BLM's own harm to the range, which goes without consequence.

00:15:17.000 It is unjust.

00:15:26.000 And it is unjust.

00:15:28.000 Okay, so this is why, forget whatever you think about the Bundys, the Hammonds are being just jacked here.

00:15:33.000 I mean, there's no question that the Hammonds are being jacked. 0.71

00:15:36.000 The idea of being sent to jail for five years because you did a controlled burn that went out of control is ridiculous.

00:15:41.000 The federal land management rules and laws and regulations are out of control themselves.

00:15:47.000 Okay, now this brings us to the second question.

00:15:49.000 And that is the question of the Bundys.

00:15:51.000 So, first of all, it is worthwhile noting, again, as with the Klein case in Oregon, and the Hammond case,

00:15:56.000 The bigger the government, the more intrusive the government, the better the shot that somebody is going to feel the necessity to fight back against the government.

00:16:02.000 That's just the way that this works.

00:16:03.000 If you have a government that is intruding in every aspect of your life, that is taking away rights that you thought that you had, and more importantly, rights that you actually did have,

00:16:12.000 In the case of the Kleins and in the case of the Hammonds, if the government is taking away those rights or attempting to deprive you of your rights so as to make a better bargain on your property, well at a certain point people are going to react badly to that.

00:16:24.000 A bigger government risks more resistance from the public.

00:16:28.000 A bigger government risks more resistance from the public.

00:16:48.000 A federal facility, which is basically an empty house in the middle of the woods in this wilderness preserve that is next to the Hammonds.

00:16:54.000 And they said, we are going to stay here until the Hammonds are released.

00:16:58.000 We're going to stay here until the Hammonds are released.

00:16:59.000 And the truth is that they have precedent for the federal government backing down.

00:17:03.000 People tend to forget. 0.70

00:17:04.000 For all of the crap that the Bundys got and for all the crap the militias got in the original Cliven Bundy case, the federal government ended up backing down and basically cutting a deal with the Bundys, you know, for good or ill. 0.94

00:17:15.000 So, they're doing all of this, and the media are going nuts. 1.00

00:17:18.000 People on the left are saying, we should shoot these people, they're terrorists. 0.98

00:17:22.000 I don't remember the last time terrorists took over an empty building and sat there. 0.98

00:17:26.000 I don't remember that.

00:17:27.000 That's usually not a high terrorist priority. 0.96

00:17:31.000 Idiot Cenk Uygur, who does a YouTube video show, used to have a show on MSNBC, The Tanked, he was saying that if these were Islamic terrorists who would have killed them already, Islamic terrorist gangs don't take over empty buildings and sit there waiting for things to happen. 0.98

00:17:46.000 They go into highly populated buildings and murder people. 0.99

00:17:48.000 That's what they do.

00:17:49.000 So these people are sitting out really in the middle of nowhere with their guns, and Cliven Bundy's son, Amin, he cut this tape he put up on Facebook and told people that he wants them to come join him.

00:18:00.000 Are you calling for more people to come up?

00:18:02.000 Absolutely.

00:18:03.000 For those that understand what is going on, and those who want to and feel a need to stand, we're asking them to come.

00:18:13.000 We have a facility that we can house them in.

00:18:17.000 We have plenty of work to do to start to unwind all of these unconstitutional land transactions and controls.

00:18:28.000 We have plenty of work to do.

00:18:29.000 We need you to come and be unified with us so we can be protected and be together.

00:18:38.000 And we're calling people to come, absolutely.

00:18:40.000 And so what would you say to law enforcement agencies potentially trying to kick you off here?

00:18:49.000 Well, we pose no threat to anybody.

00:18:52.000 There's no person that is physically harmed by what we are doing.

00:18:56.000 This facility is owned by the people.

00:18:59.000 And so if they come to bring physical harm to us, then they will be doing it only because of a facility or a building.

00:19:08.000 And I don't believe that warrants killing people or trying to basically stop people from expressing their rights and doing what they know is right.

00:19:20.000 Okay, so there are a couple things that are really interesting about what he's saying here.

00:19:23.000 He's saying, basically, this isn't worth anybody getting killed over, so the federal government really ought to take a second look.

00:19:30.000 So far, it is important to mention, no violence has actually been done, right?

00:19:33.000 This is no different than a student takeover of a building on a college campus, which we've seen a thousand times before, and the left loves.

00:19:41.000 This does raise a couple of questions.

00:19:43.000 One is, is he actually threatening violence against members of the government?

00:19:47.000 He's taken over federal property, right?

00:19:49.000 No question.

00:19:49.000 And that is a violation.

00:19:50.000 That's a trespass. 0.99

00:19:51.000 I think that, by the way, what he's doing is wrongheaded and silly. 0.95

00:19:54.000 I should mention that up front. 0.99

00:19:55.000 I think that this is, it's a foolish thing.

00:19:57.000 I think that there are ways to protest and bring attention to issues without taking over federal buildings.

00:20:02.000 I don't think that that's the best use of the public's time and money is doing all of this.

00:20:07.000 But it does raise a question.

00:20:09.000 And the question is, when should the fed... and I think it's a question that the federal government really does need to ask.

00:20:13.000 And I think that all of us need to ask when it comes to making laws.

00:20:17.000 What laws are you willing to kill someone over?

00:20:20.000 What laws are you willing to allow the government to kill somebody over?

00:20:23.000 Before you make a law, ask yourself, are you willing to kill somebody if they resist that law?

00:20:30.000 Right?

00:20:30.000 And the Bundys are a perfect example of this, and so are the Hammonds.

00:20:33.000 Are you willing to get somebody killed, right? 0.92

00:20:35.000 Let's say... Some of the left refuses to acknowledge, but it is true. 0.97

00:20:40.000 Every law in the end is backed by the power of the government gun.

00:20:43.000 The left loves guns, so long as it's the government wielding them against the populace.

00:20:47.000 As long as it's the people who are actually having the guns and controlling their own fates, the left doesn't like this.

00:20:52.000 But...

00:20:53.000 What this brings into stark relief is the fact that not every law, and once you ask that question, it becomes pretty clear what kind of laws are worthy of being on the books and what kind of laws are not, right?

00:21:05.000 Like, for example, let's take a simple law, okay?

00:21:07.000 Red light laws.

00:21:08.000 Is that worth killing somebody over?

00:21:10.000 Well, kind of. 0.96

00:21:12.000 I mean, if you have somebody who's just routinely running red lights, for example, that is endangering the public and the cops would rightly shoot them.

00:21:17.000 You are endangering the public.

00:21:19.000 Is it really worth shooting somebody over

00:21:22.000 them grazing their cattle on public land as they have historically done because you want to protect a desert tortoise as they did in Nevada.

00:21:31.000 Is it really worth shooting somebody over taking advantage of rights that they already had like the Hammond family?

00:21:39.000 Is it worth shooting somebody? 0.95

00:21:40.000 Is it worth shooting the Klein family for not catering a lesbian wedding? 0.99

00:21:44.000 If the answer is no,

00:21:45.000 Then why are those laws on the books in the first place?

00:21:47.000 Because every law, you have to at least consider that eventuality, that the government is going to have to come in and enforce the law, and if somebody resists that enforcement, then that person could get shot.

00:21:56.000 Right?

00:21:56.000 And if you think about it in that way, then what the government ought to do and what the government ought not to do, that actually becomes a relatively simple enterprise.

00:22:04.000 Ought not to do very much because the government is not enabled or empowered to shoot people on behalf of that many laws.

00:22:09.000 Or at least they shouldn't be if we're right-headed.

00:22:12.000 The fact that the left is so gung-ho about going in and shooting... I'm in Bundy and I'm talking Jonathan Chait over at the New Yorker has been writing this.

00:22:19.000 There are a bunch of people on the left who have been saying, yeah, just go in and shoot these guys. 0.80

00:22:22.000 You're really willing to shoot these guys for sitting in an empty building in the middle of a wilderness? 0.96

00:22:27.000 Is that really what you're willing to shoot these guys over?

00:22:30.000 Now, if they took over a populated building, they posed some threat?

00:22:33.000 That'd be one thing.

00:22:33.000 Let's say, for example, that they posed a threat to the water supply.

00:22:37.000 Let's say that they were actually just using all of the water.

00:22:39.000 Well, now they're threatening the livelihood and the lives themselves of thousands of people.

00:22:43.000 Yeah, you're willing to shoot people over that.

00:22:45.000 They did it in the Old West all the time.

00:22:46.000 But unless you're willing to ask yourself the question, that is the critical question.

00:22:50.000 Is this a law, the enforcement of which is worth shooting people over?

00:22:54.000 See, the left doesn't ask that question.

00:22:56.000 The left asks the opposite question.

00:22:58.000 The left asks,

00:23:00.000 Would the law be something that you oppose?

00:23:03.000 Is the law okay?

00:23:04.000 They always come from the perspective of, what rights do you have against the government, as opposed to, what rights does the government have against you?

00:23:11.000 The left's question is, why shouldn't we pass this law?

00:23:16.000 They ask the reverse question.

00:23:18.000 It's not what law is worth shooting somebody over, it's what law is not worth shooting somebody over, right?

00:23:23.000 Because they feel like most laws are worth shooting somebody over in the end, right?

00:23:27.000 If they want to shoot somebody, they'll shoot somebody.

00:23:29.000 And this brings us to the bigger issue, right?

00:23:32.000 And the bigger issue is twofold.

00:23:35.000 One is, when is armed resistance necessary and when is armed resistance not necessary?

00:23:40.000 And two is, how far is the left going to push here before things become necessary?

00:23:44.000 So, is armed resistance necessary with regard to the Hammonds?

00:23:48.000 No, I don't think armed resistance is necessary with regard to the Hammonds.

00:23:51.000 The Hammonds themselves say that armed resistance is not necessary with regard to the Hammonds.

00:23:55.000 They don't want any part of what the Mundies are doing. 0.99

00:23:56.000 They're trying to work out a deal with the government.

00:24:00.000 But I could foresee a scenario in which armed resistance to the government was necessary.

00:24:04.000 Let's say, for example, that the state of California, I've said this before, the state of California has already said that it is mandatory that public schools teach gay and lesbian history to your kids.

00:24:12.000 Let's say you decide to homeschool your kids.

00:24:15.000 And let's say the leftists in California say we're not going to accredit any homeschooling program that doesn't educate your children in the decency and beauty of the homosexual lifestyle. 0.73

00:24:25.000 And let's say that they go a step further and they say well because we're not accrediting your kids are now truants and we are going to grab your kids and put them under the care of Child Protective Services if you don't allow us to educate your kids the way we want to educate your kids.

00:24:37.000 Would that be a time for armed resistance?

00:24:40.000 Yeah, probably.

00:24:42.000 Probably.

00:24:42.000 And this is actually beginning to hit the fan a little bit because President Obama is really going directly at it when he's trying to push now executive orders on guns.

00:24:51.000 He says that he wants executive orders on guns.

00:24:53.000 He wants to be able to control the buying and selling of guns.

00:24:56.000 Now I was asked this morning, I do a morning radio show in Los Angeles, I was asked by my leftist colleague Brian Whitman, I was asked am I in favor of background checks?

00:25:03.000 And what I said is background checks are wonderful in theory and do pretty much nothing in practice.

00:25:07.000 President Obama wants to push universal background checks

00:25:10.000 We're good.

00:25:30.000 Again, I don't really have a problem with them conceptually, I just don't think they're that useful.

00:25:33.000 President Obama is pushing executive orders on guns because President Obama really does not like guns, and he doesn't like guns in the hands of the public.

00:25:39.000 And so, Greg Abbott, right?

00:25:41.000 Greg Abbott is the governor of the state of Texas, and Greg Abbott came out and he said if President Obama tries to enforce his unlawful gun grab in the state of Texas, we will resist.

00:25:51.000 He said, come and take them.

00:25:53.000 This is when the rubber is going to hit the road.

00:25:55.000 As the federal government expands, forget the federal government versus the individual, eventually there will be state actors, like Texas, who say, you can't try to enforce that on our property.

00:26:05.000 You try to bring that in here, and we will forcibly stop you.

00:26:07.000 We will meet you at the border with guys with guns.

00:26:10.000 The bigger the government gets, the more likely you're going to get these kinds of scenarios.

00:26:15.000 And by the way, the more likely that the scenario will actually be justified.

00:26:19.000 Because if the government gets that big and is violating that many rights, there will be people who eventually say, look, I'm not going to let you take my kid from me without a fight.

00:26:26.000 I'm not going to allow you to take my land from me without a fight.

00:26:29.000 I'm not going to allow you to take my gun from me without a fight.

00:26:31.000 This is becoming more common.

00:26:32.000 Do I think it's that eventuality with regard to the Hammonds?

00:26:35.000 No.

00:26:35.000 Do I think that it's that eventuality with regard to the Bundys?

00:26:38.000 No, I don't.

00:26:39.000 Do I think that as the government gets bigger, and unchecked, and feels no qualms whatsoever about shooting people over this stuff, that it's going to risk further violence?

00:26:49.000 I do, and there's a reason why there's been a big run on guns during the Obama administration.

00:26:52.000 The bigger the government gets, the more people feel the need to defend themselves against the possibility that that giant, powerful machine of government

00:27:00.000 Okay, I want to talk a little bit about the Trump vs. Hillary race right here.

00:27:11.000 So let's talk about the Trump vs. Hillary race. 0.53

00:27:13.000 Trump has been doing a great job of turning the narrative on Hillary.

00:27:16.000 So Hillary made the mistake during the last debate of calling Trump a sexist. 1.00

00:27:20.000 Which, of course, unleashed Trump.

00:27:22.000 Trump in battle mode.

00:27:24.000 It's sort of like... When Trump is in battle mode, do you remember Super Mario Bros.?

00:27:28.000 When I was a kid, I used to play this at my grandmother's house.

00:27:30.000 She had the Super Nintendo, you know, like the 64-bit.

00:27:33.000 And it was...

00:27:36.000 Old school Super Mario Brothers.

00:27:38.000 You remember when Mario got the star?

00:27:41.000 And he runs through all the enemies and they're popping off the screen?

00:27:46.000 So that's basically Trump when he's given a bone.

00:27:49.000 And so here is Donald Trump going after Hillary Clinton on her critique of him as a sexist.

00:27:56.000 I needed votes for things.

00:27:57.000 I got many things done.

00:27:58.000 I needed votes.

00:28:00.000 And I would have these people on my side.

00:28:02.000 So I wasn't going to get involved in the Monica Lewinsky thing.

00:28:05.000 And I wouldn't get involved in it now.

00:28:07.000 You're bringing it up!

00:28:08.000 I don't really care about Monica Lewinsky other than... 1.00

00:28:11.000 I think that, you know, Hillary was an enabler, and a lot of things happened that were, you know, obviously very seedy.

00:28:16.000 I mean, he was impeached, for heaven's sake.

00:28:18.000 He was impeached over this stuff.

00:28:19.000 But that was a political process, right?

00:28:21.000 The Senate wound up not going along with it.

00:28:23.000 He wound up being one of the most popular presidents in history.

00:28:25.000 He paid a massive fine on one of the cases, like a massive fine.

00:28:27.000 He was, I think his law degree was even taken away.

00:28:30.000 He wasn't able to practice law.

00:28:31.000 So, obviously, it was a big thing.

00:28:36.000 As a businessman, I would always stick up for various people, whether they were friends or not, because in many cases I needed them, I needed their votes to get things done.

00:28:45.000 Okay, and Trump went on to say that Hillary was basically an enabler for Bill, which is correct. 1.00

00:28:49.000 And Hillary is having a tough time with this. 1.00

00:28:51.000 So Hillary was at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, and this lady got up and started heckling her. 1.00

00:28:56.000 They said that she was heckling her. 0.99

00:28:58.000 Now, it's funny.

00:28:59.000 Hillary, when it comes to Black Lives Matter protesters, she'll let them heckle her all day, she'll meet with them. 1.00

00:29:03.000 This lady, however, Hillary got very upset with, and you will see why in this particular clip. 0.88

00:29:08.000 Let's start with the questions, and I'll try to get as many in.

00:29:12.000 Well, I'm going to call on people.

00:29:16.000 Wait a minute.

00:29:17.000 I'm not going to take your question, because other people have been... Yes, go right there.

00:29:21.000 Okay, let me see.

00:29:22.000 Right back there, this man right there.

00:29:26.000 Here we go, right there.

00:29:30.000 You are very rude, and I'm not going to ever call on you.

00:29:32.000 Thank you.

00:29:40.000 I asked her how in the world she can say that Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey are lying when she has no idea who Juanita Broderick is because she told me this summer that she doesn't know who she is and she doesn't want to know who she is.

00:29:56.000 And how can she assess that they're lying, which is what she told someone last month.

00:30:00.000 And she says that rape victims should be believed.

00:30:05.000 I agree with her, that's true.

00:30:06.000 They should be believed and you should assess what they're saying.

00:30:10.000 She doesn't even want to assess it.

00:30:11.000 Why doesn't she matter to you?

00:30:13.000 Because I'm a rape survivor myself.

00:30:14.000 Of course it would matter to me. 0.62

00:30:17.000 And as a state representative, I have constituents who tell me that they're drug addicts because they were sexually assaulted and overdid everything.

00:30:25.000 How would I not care about that?

00:30:27.000 You're a Republican, though.

00:30:28.000 Yes, I am.

00:30:29.000 Coming here to question her, though, coming here to question her at an event, putting her on the spotlight, that makes her look, you know, not in a perfect light.

00:30:36.000 Is that your goal? 0.96

00:30:37.000 Was your goal to make her look silly? 0.98

00:30:38.000 I was a Democrat. 0.97

00:30:39.000 I became a Republican because of this.

00:30:43.000 What?

00:30:43.000 Because of this stuff.

00:30:45.000 Because of what I saw happen in the Clinton years.

00:30:48.000 That this was the hypocrisy of the so-called women that fight for women. 1.00

00:30:53.000 It was the height of hypocrisy. 0.97

00:30:56.000 Good for her.

00:30:57.000 And Hillary Clinton is going to have to battle this one off and she's going to have a really tough time. 1.00

00:31:00.000 Fortunately, she has Bernie Sanders out there to save her.

00:31:03.000 So Bernie Sanders, who spent this entire campaign really just defending Hillary Clinton, is pretty amazing.

00:31:09.000 Bernie Sanders says there's so much more important than Hillary Clinton's sex life or Bill Clinton's sex life.

00:31:14.000 I think that Donald Trump might want to concern himself with the fact that he is dead wrong when he says we should not raise the minimum wage.

00:31:22.000 He's dead wrong when he says that wages in America are too high.

00:31:26.000 He's dead wrong when he thinks we should give huge tax breaks to billionaires like himself.

00:31:31.000 And he's dead wrong when he thinks that climate change is a hoax when virtually the entire scientific community thinks it's the great environmental crisis that we face.

00:31:40.000 Maybe Trump should worry about those issues rather than Bill Clinton's sex life.

00:31:44.000 Only Bernie Sanders can segue from Bill Clinton's sex life to climate change. 0.99

00:31:48.000 That was impressive, but what is the answer to the question, is it fair game or not?

00:31:54.000 No, I think we got more important things to worry about in this country than Bill Clinton's sex life.

00:31:58.000 No, it's not fair game.

00:31:59.000 It's not fair game.

00:31:59.000 By the way, I love how Dana Bash treats him.

00:32:01.000 Only Bernie Sanders could be such a genius as to segue from Bill Clinton's sex life to climate change.

00:32:06.000 It actually isn't that difficult to segue, but

00:32:10.000 It's more difficult to do without using words like hot and wet and moist and such, and just getting really awkward.

00:32:15.000 So, in any case, Bernie Sanders is trying to save Hillary Clinton.

00:32:17.000 She will win the nomination, but this is going to be an issue that dogs her, and Trump is unafraid to attack, so that'll make things pretty entertaining.

00:32:23.000 Okay, time for some stuff that I like and some stuff that I hate.

00:32:27.000 This time around, the stuff I like is actually the stuff that I hate, so I'm gonna warn you

00:32:31.000 Ahead of time that there will be spoilers here.

00:32:33.000 Okay, I'm gonna go I saw Star Wars I finally saw Star Wars I saw it Saturday night and there will be some spoilers in what I'm about to say So if you haven't seen the Star Wars movie yet, and you don't want it to be spoiled Then then you can you can tune out now or you can stick around and be a little bit spoiled The truth is there's there are no really huge surprises in in the new Star Wars film So when I first saw it, I did like the film.

00:32:56.000 Let me just say that up front.

00:32:57.000 I liked the film I enjoyed it.

00:32:59.000 I thought it was an effective

00:33:00.000 We're good to go.

00:33:26.000 In that sense.

00:33:26.000 So that's the thing that I like.

00:33:28.000 Now to the things that I don't like.

00:33:30.000 So, when I watched this film, I came out, and I felt pretty good about it.

00:33:34.000 I felt like it was a fun film, well done.

00:33:37.000 Derivative, because the plot is basically the exact same plot as A New Hope.

00:33:40.000 It's the same plot, pretty much measure for measure, as A New Hope, which is episode 4.

00:33:48.000 But what really depressed me... I had a tough time sleeping a little bit, and I realized that the reason I had a tough time sleeping because of the new Star Wars film is because it breaks the cardinal rule of the fictional universe.

00:34:01.000 The cardinal rule of the fictional universe.

00:34:03.000 And it's not because of J.J.

00:34:04.000 Abrams.

00:34:05.000 It's because of the entire concept of a relaunch here.

00:34:07.000 The cardinal rule of the fictional universe is that there is such a thing as happily ever after.

00:34:13.000 That when you hit the end of a story, when you hit the end of a movie, you either feel good or you feel bad because it's the end of the movie.

00:34:19.000 Right?

00:34:19.000 When you watch a TV show, not so much, because you know there's another episode next week, but eventually there will be a series finale, and people will go off and they will live or they will die, and that'll be the end of it.

00:34:28.000 Right?

00:34:28.000 There won't be more.

00:34:30.000 And one of the most depressing aspects of human life, truly, is the fact that Cinderella and her husband end up fighting over the dishes.

00:34:38.000 Right?

00:34:38.000 The fact is that happily ever after, eventually, it ends up becoming just life.

00:34:44.000 And what's particularly depressing about the Star Wars film is when you end Return of the Jedi, when Return of the Jedi ends, everything has pretty much been square to Ray, right?

00:34:52.000 Darth Vader has been turned good at the end, and Luke has become a Jedi, and Han and Leia have gotten together, and Han has become a responsible person because he's learned that he has to give up his smuggler ways, and the new movie starts, and you fast forward 40 years,

00:35:08.000 And pretty much nothing has changed.

00:35:10.000 Like, anything.

00:35:11.000 Like, they defeated the Emperor, they defeated Darth Vader, and the new movie starts and nothing has changed.

00:35:16.000 Right?

00:35:17.000 The Republic, it's not even clear if the Republic is the dominant force in the universe, it's still called the Rebellion.

00:35:21.000 Right?

00:35:22.000 The Rebellion is still called the Rebel Force, so presumably the Empire is still governing, although nobody really knows how, after the Emperor died and the second Death Star was blown up.

00:35:31.000 And beyond that, we don't know what the Republic is doing, we don't know if the rebel force is governing, and we know that Han and Leia—this is the spoiler-laden part, folks—we know that Han and Leia

00:35:44.000 have now basically had marital trouble.

00:35:46.000 So the happily ever after didn't happen for them.

00:35:49.000 And not only did it not happen for them, it really didn't happen for them, right?

00:35:52.000 They had a kid, and the kid ends up being the bad guy, ends up being Kylo Ren.

00:35:57.000 And it's really depressing, the idea that Han Solo, who's this great character who you watch transform from a guy who cares only about himself to a general in the rebel army at the end of Return of the Jedi, and presumably a governing force in the new universe, in the new galaxy,

00:36:13.000 That he has basically turned back into a smuggler.

00:36:17.000 He's regressed. 1.00

00:36:19.000 His son was a loser and is sort of a loser Sith. 0.98

00:36:23.000 He's not the world's most effective Sith. 0.98

00:36:26.000 And Leia has turned into a kind of

00:36:30.000 Hillary Clinton lookalike?

00:36:32.000 She's kind of wandering around the set being a general? 0.98

00:36:35.000 Which, by the way, was always one of the disappointing aspects of Star Wars.

00:36:37.000 Yoda makes a big deal, there is another, right?

00:36:40.000 He says, we've lost, that boy was our last hope.

00:36:43.000 No, there is another.

00:36:44.000 Right?

00:36:44.000 It turns out the another?

00:36:45.000 She spent the last 40 years learning nothing about the Force.

00:36:48.000 So she was rich in the forest also, but had no- But it's- What's depressing is the idea that we come back, and Han's journey ends.

00:36:55.000 And like I said, lots of spoilers here, folks.

00:36:57.000 Han's journey ends with him being killed by his own son.

00:37:00.000 Right?

00:37:01.000 Stabbed through the chest on a mission from Leia that is foolhardy at best.

00:37:05.000 It's Leia's fault he gets killed, by the way.

00:37:06.000 Leia says to him, go and bring back our son.

00:37:08.000 It's like, no, your son just murdered, like, 30 kids.

00:37:11.000 And your wife's like, oh, go back and bring him back. 1.00

00:37:15.000 It's not typical Han that he would think of, that he would think, oh, well, that seems like a great idea. 0.93

00:37:19.000 But he goes and he does it anyway.

00:37:20.000 It's a sad ending to a great character.

00:37:23.000 And that kind of kills my childhood for me a little bit, because when you hit the end of Return of the Jedi, and everything is great, and the teddy bears are celebrating with the golden robots, and everything is terrific, you want there to be an ending.

00:37:36.000 And violating that, coming back, and for everything to be just as dingy and dark and terrible as it ever was, and for all your heroes who had happily ever after to now be divorced?

00:37:45.000 I mean, would you really want to go back now and watch

00:37:48.000 Cinderella, if you knew that the prince was gonna cheat on her, and she was gonna throw him out of the house, and then get fat. 1.00

00:37:55.000 Right?

00:37:55.000 It's not like, would that be a story that's worth re-watching?

00:37:58.000 And so in a sense, it sort of corrupted the original trilogy.

00:38:01.000 So I'm, in my own mind, I'm trying to kind of seg off this, this particular, sector off this particular film from the earlier films, just as the first three films don't exist to me.

00:38:10.000 They just don't exist.

00:38:11.000 So four, five, and six still exist in their own universe, but this is, it was very, it was very kind of bitter.

00:38:17.000 For me.

00:38:17.000 And so I have expectations and hopes for the next film.

00:38:21.000 If you want to know my theories for the next film, I think that clearly Rey is Luke's daughter.

00:38:25.000 I think that Kylo Ren killed Luke's wife.

00:38:29.000 I think that in the next movie Leia will die and in the final movie Luke will die.

00:38:33.000 So those are all my theories.

00:38:36.000 But what I like about the movie is that it brought back all this nostalgia.

00:38:39.000 What I dislike about the movie

00:38:41.000 Is that instead of it just kind of reveling in the nostalgia and giving everybody the happy ending that they deserve, it instead takes those characters and it plunges them back into the chaos from whence they sprang.

00:38:52.000 I mean, how much fun would it be at the end of Lord of the Rings if it turns out that when Gollum falls into the volcano and the ring falls after him, that the ring actually survived and there's a creature at the bottom of the lava who's gonna take the ring and do something with it, right?

00:39:04.000 It'd be kind of depressing and you'd go back and say, okay, this whole saga was about what again?

00:39:08.000 Especially because everybody makes exactly the same mistakes, right?

00:39:12.000 Everyone makes exactly the same mistakes.

00:39:14.000 So Luke makes exactly the Obi-Wan Kenobi mistake.

00:39:16.000 Obi-Wan Kenobi takes Anakin under his wing, Anakin kills everybody, Obi-Wan Kenobi goes off and lives in a cave somewhere, and so does Yoda.

00:39:24.000 So what happens?

00:39:25.000 Luke takes his nephew under his wing, his nephew kills everybody, Luke decides he's had it, and he goes off and he lives on an island.

00:39:31.000 So the only difference between him and Ben Kenobi is that one was in a water environment and one was in a desert environment.

00:39:36.000 It's kind of depressing.

00:39:38.000 You wonder why it is that Luke... I mean, Luke lived this, right?

00:39:41.000 He's been through it before, did he not?

00:39:43.000 Anyway, those are all my problems with Star Wars, but it is an enjoyable flick.

00:39:47.000 I hold out hope the next two movies will be good.

00:39:50.000 And on that note, we'll conclude this first episode of the new year.

00:39:54.000 I am Ben Shapiro.

00:39:55.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

The Ben Shapiro Show - January 04, 2016

Ep. 48 - When Is Armed Resistance The Right Response?

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript