The Ben Shapiro Show - Of Freshness and Faceness | Ep. 815

00:00:00.000 Nancy Pelosi and the illustrious AOC get into a catfight. 0.78

00:00:03.000 Can we even say that?

00:00:04.000 A Democratic Senate hopeful implodes on launch, and Trump's Labor Secretary battles allegations of a sweetheart deal with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

00:00:11.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:12.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:13.000 The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:21.000 I believe he has pled guilty to prostitution solicitation in Florida.

00:00:26.000 It's still alleged that he's a pedophile, although the evidence is pretty solid at this point.

00:00:29.000 We'll get to all of this in just one second.

00:00:31.000 First, a rise in geopolitical tensions have actually led to a five-year high in gold prices.

00:00:37.000 You know, like six months ago?

00:00:38.000 You'd be a real happy person right now.

00:00:39.000 Is it part of your plan?

00:00:40.000 It is not a coincidence that gold prices have been rising steadily since the tanker bombings and Iran continues to create chaos in the Middle East. 1.00

00:00:51.000 None of this is a surprise because as I've been telling you for the past four years, gold is a safe haven against uncertainty.

00:00:56.000 Is it part of your plan?

00:00:57.000 Hedge against inflation and hedge against against uncertainty and instability with precious metals.

00:00:57.000 It should be.

00:01:02.000 My savings plan is diversified and yours should be as well.

00:01:04.000 The company I trust with precious metal purchases, Birch Gold Group.

00:01:07.000 I know the folks at Birch Gold Group.

00:01:09.000 They are terrific.

00:01:09.000 Look back historically.

00:01:10.000 When the bottom falls out of everything else, gold tends to safeguard savings.

00:01:13.000 Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews and a plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.

00:01:18.000 Terrific customer service, by the way.

00:01:20.000 Contact Birch Gold Group.

00:01:21.000 Get a free information kit on physical precious metals right now.

00:01:24.000 See if diversifying into gold and silver, at least a little bit, makes sense for you.

00:01:28.000 They have a comprehensive 16-page kit revealing how gold and silver can protect your savings.

00:01:32.000 How you can legally move that IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds into a precious metals IRA, if that's something that you're into.

00:01:39.000 To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit, text BEN to 474747.

00:01:41.000 Again, Text my name, Ben, to 474747.

00:01:46.000 Look to diversify at least a little bit into precious metals in a chaotic era.

00:01:50.000 Okay, so we begin today with the mother of all catfights. 0.97

00:01:55.000 I know we're not supposed to say catfight.

00:01:56.000 We were informed by AOC that if two women have a fight over nearly nothing, that you are supposed to not call this a catfight because it is sexist in some way.

00:02:05.000 Sure, even though the term catfighting has been used to apply to men, even though the term catfighting has been part of the lexicon for a very long time, now it is called catfighting if two women have an incredibly petty and public feud, which is exactly what AOC and Nancy Pelosi are having right now because they don't actually disagree all that much on policy.

00:02:22.000 Nancy Pelosi just sort of hides the ball a little bit more. 1.00

00:02:25.000 The difference between Nancy Pelosi and AOC is that Nancy Pelosi is a smart person, and AOC is not a smart person. 1.00

00:02:30.000 Nancy Pelosi does not have the right principles, but She is a battle-hardened veteran of the congressional wars. 1.00

00:02:37.000 She knows how to publicly face the policies that she is putting forward. 0.99

00:02:41.000 She's much cleverer than AOC, which is why she's the Speaker of the House. 1.00

00:02:44.000 And AOC is the representative of one of the bluest districts in America after winning a primary against another Democrat.

00:02:52.000 So the notion that AOC is any sort of real leadership challenger for Nancy Pelosi, at least in terms of skill set, is a complete fiction.

00:02:59.000 And it's a fiction promoted by the media.

00:03:01.000 And what's amazing and ironic and delicious about all of this is that Nancy Pelosi made this happen.

00:03:07.000 So AOC started to get media attention.

00:03:09.000 And Nancy Pelosi basically had two choices. 1.00

00:03:11.000 Ignore it.

00:03:12.000 Just pretend that AOC was another member of the crowd.

00:03:14.000 And she could have done that.

00:03:15.000 She could have just done that. 0.92

00:03:17.000 And then the other thing she could have done is she could have promoted AOC. 0.97

00:03:20.000 She could have said, I love the new energy that AOC is bringing to our party.

00:03:24.000 I love the fact that AOC really is channeling the future of the Democratic Party.

00:03:29.000 And she chose sort of both.

00:03:30.000 And that's the worst strategy.

00:03:32.000 Because on the one hand, she's patting AOC on the head, telling AOC that AOC is brilliant and wise and wonderful and energetic. 0.99

00:03:39.000 And on the other hand, she was saying, quite publicly, that she thinks AOC is basically an idiot, that her policies make no sense, and that she has no constituency. 0.96

00:03:46.000 Well, that's not going to make AOC particularly happy. 0.98

00:03:48.000 So this is actually Nancy Pelosi's fault.

00:03:50.000 Because what she should have been doing was downplaying these jokers from the start.

00:03:53.000 She should have been downplaying AOC.

00:03:55.000 She should have been downplaying Rashida Tlaib. 0.70

00:03:57.000 She should have been downplaying Ilhan Omar.

00:03:58.000 She should have always said that they were a very small contingent of the Democratic Party.

00:04:02.000 And she shouldn't have been patting them on the head for their energy.

00:04:04.000 Because you know what else has energy?

00:04:06.000 A rabid dog.

00:04:07.000 Lots of things have energy.

00:04:09.000 Lots of bad things have energy.

00:04:11.000 And Nancy Pelosi was trying to channel that energy. 1.00

00:04:13.000 Nancy Pelosi wanted the best of both worlds.

00:04:15.000 She wanted to be able to utilize the cocaine-like power of identity politics that is now bubbling up from the base of the Democratic Party. 1.00

00:04:24.000 She wanted to harness it, and then she wanted to use it in her own particular way.

00:04:29.000 But you didn't want any of the after effects of all of that.

00:04:31.000 Well, that's not how this works.

00:04:32.000 The Republican Party, by the way, has found out the same thing.

00:04:34.000 In the 2016 primaries, every single candidate tried to do this with Donald Trump.

00:04:39.000 Every single candidate tried to use Donald Trump.

00:04:41.000 They tried to say, okay, well, Donald Trump, you know, I may disagree with Donald Trump, but his folks are really energetic, and he's bringing a new, interesting energy to the Republican Party primaries.

00:04:51.000 And they figured, okay, eventually he would fade, and they'd pick up his support, and then they would just move on with that sort of cocaine, Energy power that Trump was bringing to the table in 2016.

00:05:00.000 Well, by the time they realized that Trump's base was sticking with him, by the time they realized that Trump was a legitimate player, it was too late for them to do anything.

00:05:08.000 Now, where Pelosi has an advantage is that AOC does not have a national crowd.

00:05:13.000 For all of the talk about AOC being this tremendously powerful political player, she is not.

00:05:17.000 But she certainly perceives herself that way, and she's utterly unhinged.

00:05:21.000 She's utterly unhinged when it comes to her practice of politics. 0.99

00:05:24.000 So, she is not holding back anymore.

00:05:26.000 So, we sort of have to reverse and explain what Nancy Pelosi was doing here.

00:05:30.000 So, again, Nancy Pelosi spent her early days posing with AOC on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

00:05:36.000 I'm talking about how these new freshman women, they were just bringing this new wonderful zeitgeist and energy to Congress and they have such great new ideas. 0.95

00:05:44.000 And then she'd go out publicly and she would say stuff like this. 1.00

00:05:48.000 - When we won this election, it wasn't in districts like mine or Alexandria's, however, she's a wonderful member of Congress, I think all of our colleagues will attest, but those are districts that are solidly democratic.

00:06:04.000 This glass of water would win with a D next to its name in those districts.

00:06:09.000 And not to diminish the exuberance and the personality and the rest of Alexandria and the other members.

00:06:17.000 Exuberance and personality.

00:06:19.000 We want the exuberance.

00:06:20.000 We want the personality.

00:06:21.000 But let's be real about this.

00:06:23.000 The only reason she's in Congress is because she was in the bluest district on planet Earth. 1.00

00:06:27.000 And she made these kind of comments, Pelosi did, over and over and over again over the past six months.

00:06:33.000 She called the Green New Deal the Green Dream or whatever.

00:06:36.000 She sort of mocked it.

00:06:38.000 Suggested the Green Dream or whatever they call it.

00:06:40.000 Nobody knows what it is, but they're for it, right?

00:06:42.000 She referred to the Green New Deal, which was AOC's chief policy priority, involving the murder of millions of farting cows and the grounding of all airplanes, as quote, one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. 0.63

00:06:53.000 And she sort of shuffled it off to the side, because it received zero votes in the Senate. 0.51

00:06:57.000 And then she was asked about AOC's wing, and she got kind of upset about it, and she said, listen, AOC's wing is like five people.

00:07:04.000 She likes to minimize the conflicts within her caucus between the moderates and the progressives.

00:07:11.000 You have these wings, AOC and her group on one side. 0.64

00:07:15.000 That's like five people.

00:07:17.000 No, it's the progressive group.

00:07:19.000 It's more than five.

00:07:20.000 I'm a progressive.

00:07:21.000 Okay, so there's Nancy Pelosi again dismissing AOC, and then just a few days ago, she did an interview with the New York Times with Maureen Dowd over at the New York Times, and she said, all these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world, but they don't have any following.

00:07:34.000 They're four people.

00:07:34.000 That's how many votes they got.

00:07:37.000 Which is 100% accurate.

00:07:38.000 I've been saying it since the very beginning.

00:07:39.000 The difference is, I think that AOC is a blight on our politics.

00:07:43.000 I think that Nancy Pelosi is similarly a blight on our politics, but a clever blight on our politics at the very least.

00:07:48.000 The problem is, once you attack AOC, you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

00:07:54.000 AOC is a result of identity politics.

00:07:57.000 She's a result of unhinged progressivism. 0.98

00:07:59.000 And that may fuel energy, but like cocaine, there is a very strong temporary high and then the long-term effects start to kick in.

00:08:07.000 The John Belushi effect on politics is very much in evidence here.

00:08:11.000 A lot of brilliance and crazy and wacky.

00:08:13.000 And then comes the downside.

00:08:16.000 It's really, it's bad for Nancy Pelosi because now AOC is upset. 0.96

00:08:20.000 And AOC has basically suggested that Nancy Pelosi is a racist. 0.98

00:08:25.000 So the fight is now out in the open.

00:08:27.000 Both of these sides are going at each other, hammer and tongs, and I'm here for it, man.

00:08:32.000 Hook it straight into my veins.

00:08:34.000 This is my political cocaine.

00:08:36.000 So Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday she had, quote, no regrets about a comment published over the weekend that seemed to dismiss the influence of some of her highest profile freshmen, including AOC, and privately urged those Democrats to train their fire on Republicans, not on their own colleagues.

00:08:50.000 Pelosi said, I have no regrets about anything.

00:08:52.000 In fact, she got a neck tattoo that said no regerts.

00:08:55.000 Pelosi suggested to Maureen Dowd, of course, that the so-called squad had a limited following inside the House.

00:09:00.000 I saw somebody online referred to AOC and her followers as Sandinistas, which I kind of love. 0.98

00:09:06.000 Pelosi said, Pelosi defended those comments after leaving a closed-door caucus meeting, according to the Washington Post, where she delivered a stern warning to her party's left to keep their criticism of fellow Democrats to themselves.

00:09:21.000 She noted it was the party's more moderate members who delivered control of the House to Democrats.

00:09:25.000 Accurate.

00:09:26.000 And asked lawmakers to be respectful of that.

00:09:28.000 She said a majority is a fragile thing.

00:09:30.000 She said that people like AOC should show some level of respect and sensitivity to more moderate colleagues.

00:09:36.000 She said, you make me the target, but don't make our moderates the target in all of this because we have important fish to fry.

00:09:41.000 Well, that's not stopping AOC because she is not going to be quieted by this elder stateswoman. 0.99

00:09:49.000 It's basically Lucille Bluth here trying to hold back the passions of Buster It's pretty fantastic.

00:09:57.000 In other recent tweets, the legislative mastermind Saikat Chakrabarti, who may or may not be involved in some campaign finance issues with AOC, that is AOC's chief of staff, criticized Pelosi and moderate Democrats via Twitter.

00:10:12.000 He said, all these articles want to claim what a legislative mastermind Pelosi is, but I'm seeing way more strategic smarts from the four freshman members.

00:10:18.000 Pelosi is just mad she got outmaneuvered by the Republicans.

00:10:22.000 But that's not really where the baseline of this is.

00:10:26.000 The baseline of this is that AOC is now calling Pelosi a racist, and that is just phenomenal because Pelosi deserves it.

00:10:34.000 So the new rule, as my business partner Jeremy Boring, now verified on Twitter, points out, He points out that racism is basically the all-purpose term for I disagree with somebody to my left.

00:10:46.000 So Donald Trump is a racist because he disagrees with Nancy Pelosi, and now Nancy Pelosi is a racist because she disagrees with AOC.

00:10:52.000 But AOC told the New Yorker Radio Hour, quote, I think sometimes people think we have a relationship. 0.91

00:10:58.000 Not particularly.

00:11:00.000 Ooh, cutting.

00:11:02.000 I love this stuff.

00:11:02.000 This is so good.

00:11:03.000 And then she suggested to the Washington Post that Pelosi was a racist, quote, When these comments first started, I kind of thought she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm's distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood.

00:11:14.000 But the persistent singling out, it got to the point where it was just outright disrespectful.

00:11:18.000 The explicit singling out of a newly elected women of color.

00:11:23.000 Boom! 0.99

00:11:24.000 Drop the mic. 0.97

00:11:25.000 She's played the woman of color card.

00:11:26.000 Nancy Pelosi, down.

00:11:28.000 Start that count.

00:11:30.000 Oh boy.

00:11:31.000 So now AOC is suggesting that Nancy Pelosi doesn't like AOC because AOC is brown. 1.00

00:11:36.000 That's the actual suggestion. 0.65

00:11:37.000 That Nancy Pelosi, who's openly explaining why she's got a problem with AOC, and she keeps telling AOC and these freshman members, stop talking about primarying our members, stop tweeting about fellow Democrats, it's obnoxious, it's bad for us, it undercuts our legislative agenda, and AOC's like, you're just saying that because you hate me because you're a racist. 0.95

00:11:55.000 Man.

00:11:57.000 Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats deserve every, every, every aspect of this.

00:12:02.000 Every single grain of that identity politics cocaine they've been snorting for years. 0.99

00:12:06.000 It's now coming back in the form of serious mental problems.

00:12:12.000 And it is, it is delicious and it is well-deserved.

00:12:15.000 Never get high off your own supply, says Cocaine Mitch.

00:12:18.000 And that is exactly what happened here.

00:12:20.000 The Democrats got high off their own supply.

00:12:22.000 The identity politics was a weapon.

00:12:23.000 It was supposed to be used against people on the right.

00:12:25.000 And now, because it has infused every vein in the Democratic body politic, it's gonna be used against anyone you disagree with, including Nancy Pelosi, who's sitting there going, what the hell?

00:12:36.000 I shepherded Obamacare and ran Congress for this? 0.96

00:12:39.000 For this pipsqueak to come and call me a racist because I think that she's incompetent? 0.71

00:12:44.000 Yes. 0.66

00:12:45.000 I'll give you more of it in just one second because it's fantastic.

00:12:48.000 But first, it is coming.

00:12:49.000 The biggest shopping day on the planet.

00:12:50.000 I'm talking about Amazon Prime Day.

00:12:52.000 Now, as you know, I am an Amazon person.

00:12:55.000 I am there for Amazon all day, every day.

00:12:57.000 It is the greatest service in the history of mankind.

00:13:00.000 And Amazon Prime Day is fantastic.

00:13:01.000 It's the most insane day of savings across the Internet's largest marketplace.

00:13:04.000 But did you know there's such a thing as Prime Day pretty much every day?

00:13:08.000 It is indeed possible, and it's easy.

00:13:10.000 All you have to do is use Honey.

00:13:12.000 Honey is a free browser extension that searches the internet for coupon codes, then, like magic...

00:13:17.000 It automatically applies them to your cart at checkout.

00:13:19.000 You know that Honey also works on Amazon, even though Amazon doesn't have discount codes.

00:13:23.000 Whenever you shop on Amazon, Honey searches every last one of Amazon's 2 million plus sellers to make sure that you are getting the lowest price possible.

00:13:29.000 I've saved bunches of money on Amazon just using Honey.

00:13:33.000 It really is fantastic.

00:13:34.000 Honey even factors in sales tax shipping, Amazon Prime status.

00:13:37.000 You're not going to get fooled by the shipping price or any of that sort of stuff.

00:13:40.000 Simply put, if there's a better price, Honey will find it in seconds. 0.99

00:13:42.000 I've been using Honey For months at this point, maybe years at this point, and it is, it's got to have saved me at least hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars.

00:13:49.000 Add Honey for free in just two clicks.

00:13:50.000 It is that easy.

00:13:51.000 Start saving today on Prime Day and every day for that matter.

00:13:54.000 Add Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.

00:13:56.000 That is joinhoney.com slash Ben.

00:13:59.000 Honey, online savings simplified.

00:14:01.000 Joinhoney.com slash Ben and get it installed for free.

00:14:04.000 Alrighty, so AOC going after Pelosi, calling her a racist.

00:14:09.000 Yes!

00:14:10.000 Yes! 0.92

00:14:11.000 So, the way that this has been working for Democrats for years now is that if you disagree with Democrats, you are a racist.

00:14:16.000 Nancy Pelosi now disagrees with AOC, and that means that she is a racist, which I'm sure is, I'm sure that's where this is going.

00:14:24.000 Hilarious.

00:14:25.000 Hilarious.

00:14:25.000 She posed on this cover of Rolling Stone with AOC and with Rashida Tlaib and with Ilhan Omar, and now That three-person caucus is turning on Nancy Pelosi and now categorizing her with whom?

00:14:39.000 Tucker Carlson?

00:14:40.000 That's the other person that Ilhan Omar is going after today.

00:14:42.000 Ilhan Omar is suggesting that Tucker Carlson is a racist because he said our immigration system is broken if it's bringing in people like Ilhan Omar who have such a negative view of the country.

00:14:51.000 So I guess Nancy Pelosi is now part of the Tucker Carlson crew. 1.00

00:14:54.000 Amazing how as the Overton window shifts left, Nancy Pelosi is going to end up being like the co-host of the show by the time the left is done. 1.00

00:15:02.000 It's insane.

00:15:03.000 It's totally crazy.

00:15:05.000 And AOC isn't unwinding either.

00:15:07.000 She's feeling very sad for herself despite the fact that she's insanely prominent based on having won a primary in the bluest district in America.

00:15:14.000 She's insanely prominent based on the fact that she's passed zero legislation or even really been involved in zero serious pieces of legislative movement. 0.98

00:15:23.000 Yeah, she's incredibly famous and well-known because she is very good at the Twitter clapbacks, or at least her ghostwriters are. 0.99

00:15:31.000 AOC is, and she's feeling very whiny about herself.

00:15:33.000 So, how whiny is she? 1.00

00:15:35.000 She's complaining now that the Democrats are keeping her too busy.

00:15:37.000 She says, they're trying to just give me busy work so that I don't make trouble.

00:15:42.000 She's like a third grader who's upset that the teacher has put her in the corner and given her the Bart Simpson project of writing over and over on a piece of paper, I will not criticize other moderate Democrats.

00:15:54.000 So here's AOC complaining that she's so busy, they're keeping me busy so that I can't do the important stuff, you know, like talk about farting cows and all.

00:16:01.000 I think that ultimately I'm fine with the decision, especially given the committee assignments that I was ultimately given, which were very intense and very rigorous.

00:16:09.000 I was assigned to two of some of the busiest committees and four subcommittees, so my hands are full.

00:16:16.000 And sometimes I wonder if they're trying to keep me busy.

00:16:19.000 Yeah, that's it.

00:16:20.000 That's it.

00:16:21.000 They're trying to keep you busy because you are so impactful and so important.

00:16:25.000 You know, this is what happens, Nancy, when you give small children unearned self-esteem.

00:16:31.000 This is what happens.

00:16:33.000 And by relative terms, AOC is the child in the Congress.

00:16:36.000 I mean, she's the youngest person in the Congress.

00:16:38.000 She doesn't know anything.

00:16:40.000 And Nancy Pelosi gave her all sorts of credibility.

00:16:43.000 She gave her all sorts of power.

00:16:45.000 And now, she's feeling the brunt of that when she tells AOC to stop mouthing off on Twitter quite so much.

00:16:51.000 It's pretty phenomenal.

00:16:55.000 AOC is the teenager, Nancy Pelosi is the mom, and Nancy Pelosi keeps screaming for AOC to turn down the music, and AOC is turning up the music and doing whatever she wants in that bedroom of hers. 1.00

00:17:05.000 And not only that, she's then coming downstairs and calling mom the B word.

00:17:10.000 That's what is happening right here.

00:17:12.000 And it is fantastic.

00:17:13.000 Now, this does have some broader ramifications because AOC does actually represent the loudest wing of the party, even though that wing of the party is minority of the party.

00:17:21.000 So AOC is not merely restricting her criticism to other congressional candidates.

00:17:25.000 She's also going after Joe Biden.

00:17:27.000 So she said in the last couple of days, she was slamming Joe Biden, suggesting that the debate raised questions about his capacity.

00:17:35.000 Joe Biden, his performance on the stage kind of raised some questions with respect to that.

00:17:43.000 But I don't want to say just because someone is 79, they can't or shouldn't run for president.

00:17:51.000 I don't want to use those proxies, a number as a proxy for capacity.

00:17:56.000 I think you have to assess a person's capacity kind of on a case by case basis.

00:18:02.000 Okay, well now AOC, by the way, not only is she ripping Biden, she's back, like in the last few minutes, to ripping Pelosi.

00:18:08.000 So, she was just asked by Manu Raju, who's a reporter over at CNN, if she stands by her comment that Pelosi singles out women of color, quote, Well, I think it's really just pointing out a pattern, right?

00:18:17.000 We're not talking about progressives.

00:18:18.000 It's singling out four individuals and knowing the media environment we're operating in, knowing the amount of death threats we get, knowing the amount of concentration of attention.

00:18:26.000 I think it's worth asking why.

00:18:27.000 Yes, yes, and yes!

00:18:29.000 Yes!

00:18:30.000 Okay, so, here's why this is so radically enjoyable. 0.89

00:18:33.000 Ilhan Omar, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, they've been using this crap against everybody who disagrees with them for months at this point. 0.97

00:18:40.000 If you disagree with them, it's because you want them to receive death threats, or you want them to, God forbid, be killed, or something terrible like that. 1.00

00:18:47.000 It can't just be you think they're idiots who say stupid and terrible things all the time that they all It can't be that. 1.00

00:18:52.000 Virtually all of those members have been openly associated with vicious anti-Semites, that their proposal ideas are about as relevant as an ejector seat on a helicopter. 1.00

00:19:03.000 It can't be that. 0.97

00:19:05.000 It has to be that you hate them because they are women of color and because you want them to receive death threats.

00:19:10.000 And now AOC is taking that same exact charge and she is leveling it at the speaker of her house contingent. 0.92

00:19:17.000 It is fantastic. 1.00

00:19:18.000 And it demonstrates how empty and stupid this charge was in the first place. 0.99

00:19:21.000 Does anybody with a shred of rationality actually believe that Nancy Pelosi wants AOC to receive death threats because AOC is a powerful woman of color? 0.99

00:19:30.000 Does anyone really believe that? 1.00

00:19:31.000 And if you do believe that, how gullible and dumb are you? 0.99

00:19:34.000 If you really believe that Nancy Pelosi is now the emissary of the old white establishment because she's an old white lady, if you really believe that that's what she is, that's what she represents, man, you guys, this is crazy towns and it is wonderful. 0.99

00:19:48.000 It is well deserved.

00:19:50.000 Everybody on the left, You bought this ticket, you take this ride now.

00:19:54.000 So pick sides.

00:19:56.000 Get on board.

00:19:56.000 Which one is it?

00:19:57.000 This is the Iran-Iraq war from the 80s.

00:20:00.000 Which side are you on?

00:20:01.000 You got the Mullahs, you got Saddam here. 0.99

00:20:03.000 Which one do you want? 0.99

00:20:05.000 Because you're gonna have to pick either Nancy Pelosi, the old white lady who is apparently cracking down on women of color, or AOC, the brash newcomer who's labeling one of the most impactful lawmakers of the last 50 years a vicious racist for disagreeing with her dumb policies and bad ideas. 1.00

00:20:21.000 Love it. 0.99

00:20:22.000 Love it.

00:20:24.000 What's amazing about this even more than just the inherent wonder of the battle between AOC and Pelosi, and AOC's playing the same game that Kamala Harris plays about Joe Biden.

00:20:34.000 She was asked if she thinks Pelosi is a racist.

00:20:37.000 And she said, no, no, absolutely not.

00:20:39.000 Absolutely not.

00:20:40.000 Well, then how do you square that with she's criticizing women of color because it's I'm just pointing out a pattern. 1.00

00:20:45.000 Ayanna Pressley, by the way, said, quote, In my district, we have 18 shootings since July 3rd.

00:20:49.000 I'm heading into oversight in a child trauma hearing I've been advocating for.

00:20:52.000 I'm not giving this any more oxygen. 0.99

00:20:53.000 Ayanna Pressley, who, as I've said, is the Ringo Starr of this this Beatles of stupidity in the House Democratic Caucus. 1.00

00:21:00.000 She is apparently the least stupid of these folks because she says, I'm not jumping into this thing, but AOC is going to jump into it. 0.99

00:21:06.000 This has some actual impact beyond just the congressional delegation for the Democrats. 0.99

00:21:11.000 Namely, Democratic candidates all over the country have no idea how they are supposed to campaign.

00:21:16.000 They have no clue how they are supposed to campaign.

00:21:18.000 Take, for example, Democrat Amy McGrath.

00:21:20.000 So Amy McGrath, is the brand new Senate candidate facing down cocaine Mitch. 1.00

00:21:25.000 And she's going to take on Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. 1.00

00:21:28.000 And she's hoping she can convince Kentuckians who voted for Trump and has pledged to drain the swamp that Republican Mitch McConnell is the biggest swamp dweller in Washington.

00:21:36.000 This is according to the Courier-Journal in Kentucky.

00:21:40.000 She said, I fully recognize how difficult this race will be and the history behind folks who have gone up against Senator McConnell.

00:21:46.000 And then she said that if President Trump has good ideas, then she will back those good ideas.

00:21:51.000 She said, a lot of Kentuckians voted for Donald Trump because he wasn't part of that political establishment on either side.

00:21:56.000 For me, I'm a Democrat.

00:21:57.000 My husband's Republican.

00:21:58.000 I was an independent for 12 years.

00:22:00.000 It's always been about my country.

00:22:02.000 And in the middle of this interview that she was doing, she made a very interesting statement about Justice Kavanaugh.

00:22:08.000 I'll explain in just one second what exactly she said.

00:22:12.000 First, let me talk about personal security.

00:22:15.000 So, unlike some folks who may claim that they receive serious security threats every moment of every day, I actually do have security an enormous amount of the time because we do get an enormous number of threats.

00:22:28.000 And one of the reasons that I have Ring at my house is because I want to make sure that my home is safe at all times.

00:22:33.000 You should have Ring too.

00:22:35.000 Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.

00:22:36.000 You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.

00:22:40.000 Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.

00:22:43.000 So, if there's a package delivery, a surprise visitor, you will get an alert.

00:22:46.000 You'll be able to see, see, hear, speak to them all from your phone.

00:22:49.000 You know, whenever I'm out of town on travel and somebody rings the doorbell, very often you want to know who that is because sometimes it's some creeper who's ringing the doorbell to make sure that you're not home before they invade your home and do something.

00:23:00.000 Well, now when you're out of town, you can still pick it up from your phone.

00:23:03.000 You can call the police.

00:23:04.000 It's pretty fantastic.

00:23:05.000 As a subscriber, you have a special offer on a Ring welcome kit available right now at ring.com slash Ben.

00:23:10.000 The kit includes a video doorbell and a chime pro, which is just what you need to start building that ring of security around your home today.

00:23:16.000 Go to Ring.com slash Ben.

00:23:18.000 That is Ring.com slash Ben.

00:23:19.000 I've been using Ring for years.

00:23:20.000 You should too.

00:23:21.000 Ring.com slash Ben.

00:23:23.000 Go check them out right now.

00:23:24.000 OK, so.

00:23:26.000 As I say, this Democratic Senate candidate is trying to read the tea leaves in Kentucky, which is a state that Donald Trump won by 30 points.

00:23:32.000 And she's trying to figure out, how do I run?

00:23:34.000 Can I run as a moderate and maybe win?

00:23:38.000 Or do I have to please the AOC wing of the base?

00:23:41.000 And this creates an enormous amount of confusion.

00:23:44.000 So, Amy McGrath, who is this candidate running against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, she was asked about Justice Kavanaugh.

00:23:49.000 She said, It's a good question.

00:23:51.000 I didn't listen to all of the hearings.

00:23:52.000 I don't think there was anything, and I'm not a lawyer or a senator on the Judiciary Committee, so I don't know the criteria, but I was very concerned about Judge Kavanaugh when I felt like there were far-right stances that he had.

00:24:02.000 However, there was nothing in his record that I think would disqualify him in any way.

00:24:06.000 And the fact is, when you have a president in the Senate, this is our system, and so I don't think there was anything that would have disqualified him in my mind.

00:24:13.000 And then she was asked by the Courier-Journal, did the Democrats treat him unfairly with the accusations that were against him waiting until the last minute, as some have said, to try and delay the hearings?

00:24:21.000 McGrath said the Supreme Court nominees are a lifetime appointment.

00:24:23.000 I don't fault anyone for bringing up things that could give folks pause about the character of someone getting a lifetime appointment.

00:24:29.000 And then she said that she thought that Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Justice Kavanaugh were credible.

00:24:35.000 She said, I think it's credible, but given the amount of time that lapsed in between and from a judicial standpoint, I don't think it would really disqualify him.

00:24:41.000 And she said, yeah, I think I probably would have voted for Brett Kavanaugh, which is the correct answer in Kentucky.

00:24:47.000 In Kentucky, if you're a Democrat, that is the correct answer, because if you looked at the polls, you know what was wildly unpopular among Americans?

00:24:53.000 The attempt by Democrats to deprive Kavanaugh of due process based on an evidenceless allegation by one person brought at the last minute by Democratic partisans.

00:25:02.000 But Amy McGrath is now caught up in this maelstrom inside the Democratic Party of, are you with AOC?

00:25:07.000 Are you with Nancy Pelosi?

00:25:08.000 Are you with the progressive wing?

00:25:10.000 Or are you with the people who actually want to win?

00:25:12.000 So then Amy McGrath did what is called the rare political double flip-flop, as Comfortably Smug put it on Twitter. 1.00

00:25:21.000 I mean, the Russian judges gave it a 10.

00:25:23.000 Amy McGrath tweeted out, So she said, yeah, I would have voted for him.

00:25:26.000 And then she says, no, I wouldn't have voted for him.

00:25:27.000 So she said, Yeah, I would have voted for him.

00:25:35.000 And then she says, No, I wouldn't have voted for him.

00:25:38.000 And then she continues and tweets out, I know I disappointed many today with my initial answer on how I would have voted on Brett Kavanaugh.

00:25:45.000 I will make mistakes and always own up to them.

00:25:47.000 The priority is defeating Mitch McConnell.

00:25:48.000 Now, she had originally before that interview in the Courier Journal said she wouldn't have voted for Kavanaugh.

00:25:53.000 So she said, no, I won't vote for him.

00:25:54.000 Yes, I will vote for him.

00:25:56.000 No, I won't vote for him.

00:25:57.000 And this is all coming because Democrats don't know how to read their own party base at this point.

00:26:02.000 One of the things that's been happening is that the political parties in the United States, and Donald Trump is excellent proof of this, the political parties in the United States no longer know how to read their own base.

00:26:12.000 They don't know how to read the people they represent.

00:26:14.000 Because here's the truth about American politics.

00:26:18.000 There are those of us who spend our days and nights thinking about this sort of stuff.

00:26:21.000 And we try to create intellectual frameworks for how people are going to vote.

00:26:25.000 We try to create these sort of philosophies that we believe people should vote based upon.

00:26:31.000 And parties try to do the same thing. 0.99

00:26:33.000 But parties do it in a dumber way. 0.92

00:26:34.000 They don't try to create kind of general philosophies that they think people are aspiring to. 0.97

00:26:39.000 They instead try to create party platforms that are basically an agglomeration of issues that they think are popular enough with a particular group of people that they can win a majority.

00:26:47.000 This is what Democrats are trying to do right now by pandering to every group under the sun.

00:26:51.000 It's what Republicans have done in the past by putting together this weird amalgamation of everything from some tariffs and no tariffs to We're kind of socially liberal.

00:26:59.000 We're kind of socially conservative.

00:27:00.000 It's been very unclear on what the overall philosophy actually has been.

00:27:04.000 Now, the truth is that voters are neither of these things.

00:27:07.000 Voters, number one, generally don't vote based on an overarching philosophy.

00:27:11.000 And number two, don't vote based on an agglomeration of policy positions.

00:27:15.000 Voters vote based on personality and comfort level.

00:27:20.000 In general, sort of feeling about the country and the narrative surrounding the country.

00:27:25.000 And that's why everything has become a culture war in politics.

00:27:28.000 But the parties have been unable to capture the nature of those culture wars.

00:27:32.000 It's why Donald Trump has continued to be effective.

00:27:34.000 The reason Trump is effective is because he's a culture warrior.

00:27:36.000 By the way, this is also why Obama was effective.

00:27:39.000 In 2008, he ran effectively as a culture warrior against divisiveness.

00:27:43.000 The irony, of course, is that he then reversed himself and proved to be an extraordinarily divisive president.

00:27:48.000 Donald Trump looked at the divisions in the country and he said these divisions are very real and one side is being ignored and I'm going to tell those folks that they are being ignored and they're being left behind.

00:27:58.000 That was Trump's pitch.

00:27:59.000 That was not a political pitch.

00:28:00.000 It was not a philosophical pitch.

00:28:01.000 It was an emotional pitch and it was properly It was properly aimed and directed at the right number of voters.

00:28:07.000 But the parties are not able to do that because the parties, of course, have candidates all over the country who have local constituencies.

00:28:13.000 And so you end up with this weird attempt to create national parties from local constituencies that differ widely.

00:28:20.000 Amy McGrath's state is not going to look anything like AOC's district.

00:28:25.000 And yet, Amy McGrath requires the support of people like AOC in order to go forward.

00:28:29.000 And this creates an unbridgeable divide.

00:28:31.000 You're seeing this play out in the Democratic primaries right now.

00:28:34.000 Who exactly is representative of the Democratic base?

00:28:37.000 Is it Joe Biden, who represents a plurality of Democrats?

00:28:40.000 Or is it Kamala Harris, who represents a smaller minority of Democrats, but a more passionate minority of Democrats, perhaps?

00:28:47.000 All of this leads to tremendous confusion inside the party system, and it's why the party system is starting to break down.

00:28:53.000 And that's going to be bad, particularly for the parties that are unable to hold together any semblance of unity.

00:29:00.000 Right now, that looks a lot more like the Democrats than it does like the Republicans. 0.95

00:29:03.000 It's also why it would really behoove President Trump to stop being so divisive inside his own caucus by saying dumb things. 0.98

00:29:10.000 What I mean by that is that President Trump today started tweeting out dumb things again. 0.99

00:29:14.000 It is amazing to me. 0.99

00:29:15.000 All Donald Trump has to do is shut up and he will win re-election.

00:29:18.000 That is literally all he has to do. 0.99

00:29:20.000 All he has to do is shut up and point. 0.98

00:29:22.000 And point at the Democrats. 0.99

00:29:23.000 And instead, he's out there tweeting weird crap And giving people a level of disquiet with his presidency that is unwarranted by his record. 0.99

00:29:33.000 Today he got on Twitter and he just started tweeting out random nonsense. 0.99

00:29:36.000 I mean, I don't know if he was just bored today or what.

00:29:40.000 But he started tweeting out... Here's what the president tweeted.

00:29:45.000 He tweeted out, A big subject today at the White House Social Media Summit will be the tremendous dishonesty, bias, discrimination, and suppression practiced by certain companies.

00:29:53.000 We will not let them get away with it much longer.

00:29:54.000 The fake news media will also be there, but for a limited period.

00:29:57.000 The fake news is not as important or as powerful as social media.

00:30:00.000 So far, fine.

00:30:02.000 They've lost tremendous credibility since that day in November 2016 that I came down the escalator with the person who is to become your future First Lady.

00:30:10.000 Well, that was actually like 2015.

00:30:12.000 Anyway, he says, when I ultimately leave office in six years or maybe 10 or 14, just kidding.

00:30:20.000 They will quickly go out of business for lack of credibility or approval from the public.

00:30:24.000 That's why they will all be endorsing me at some point, one way or the other.

00:30:27.000 Could you imagine having sleepy Joe Biden or Alfred E. Newman, I assume that's Pete Buttigieg, or a very nervous and skinny version of Pocahontas, 1,000 over 24th?

00:30:36.000 That's not how fractions work.

00:30:38.000 As your president, rather than what you have now, so great looking and smart, a true stable genius, capital S, capital G, Sorry to say that even social media would be driven out of business along with, and finally, the fake news media.

00:30:53.000 What in the actual F is that?

00:30:57.000 What in the actual world?

00:30:58.000 And listen, okay, I get there are people who are clapping and cheering.

00:31:01.000 Yeah, okay.

00:31:02.000 Here is the problem.

00:31:03.000 The economy is really good right now.

00:31:05.000 It continues to be really good right now.

00:31:08.000 The economy continues to be great for job creation.

00:31:11.000 The Dow Jones Industrial Average just hit 27,000 for the first time in history.

00:31:16.000 Okay, so what are we doing here?

00:31:19.000 Why?

00:31:20.000 When chaos is breaking out on the other side, let them have their firefight.

00:31:23.000 Why are you doing this?

00:31:25.000 Why?

00:31:25.000 It's so funny.

00:31:26.000 Trump put out a tweet with an ad created by somebody else about his leadership in his presidency.

00:31:32.000 And the ad is well produced if the president was George W. Bush, because what the ad was, was this very soothing music talking about President Trump has stood strong and unwavering in the storm.

00:31:43.000 President Trump is a man who has deep abiding character, And he sticks with his principles.

00:31:47.000 And he calls all of this just a start.

00:31:50.000 It looks like a typical presidential candidate.

00:31:52.000 There's only one problem.

00:31:53.000 Everybody knows that ain't Trump.

00:31:54.000 Meaning that there's a group of people who think that that is Trump, but those people basically work for him.

00:32:00.000 Everybody else understands that the dude's a volatile character that comes along with a lot of benefits and a lot of drawbacks.

00:32:06.000 And really, if he would just stop, then everything would be okay.

00:32:10.000 Why does everyone seek to draw defeat from the jaws of victory?

00:32:14.000 How?

00:32:15.000 I've been saying for years about the Democrats, all they had to do was not be crazy, and they literally could not do it.

00:32:19.000 It was impossible for them.

00:32:21.000 And then you got Trump, and he decides he wants to do the same thing.

00:32:24.000 I'm so supremely confused about why he would do that.

00:32:28.000 It is beyond me.

00:32:29.000 Okay, now in just a second, I'm going to get to the latest scandal that is now surrounding the Trump administration.

00:32:35.000 It really isn't about the Trump administration at all.

00:32:38.000 It's really about the Criminal justice system in the United States.

00:32:41.000 There's confusion surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

00:32:44.000 Alex Acosta, Trump's Secretary of Labor, is under fire.

00:32:47.000 We'll talk about that in one second.

00:32:49.000 First, hiring used to be rough.

00:32:50.000 Not anymore.

00:32:51.000 When someone makes the slightest, most minor, insignificant mistake here on the Ben Shapiro Show, except for me.

00:32:56.000 We know how easily we can replace them thanks to ZipRecruiter.

00:32:59.000 Everybody here is on notice.

00:33:00.000 ZipRecruiter is the greatest threat to their job, but also it makes your business better.

00:33:04.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.

00:33:06.000 By the way, you don't have to fire anybody just to use ZipRecruiter.

00:33:08.000 Maybe you want to hire some new people because your business is growing the way we are here at DailyWire.

00:33:12.000 That's why we use ZipRecruiter, not just to replace the deplorables who work for us. 0.57

00:33:15.000 ZipRecruiter sends your job posting to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.

00:33:20.000 As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one, spotlights the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.

00:33:26.000 ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.

00:33:32.000 Right now, my listeners can try out ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.

00:33:36.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:33:39.000 That's ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.

00:33:42.000 You help us out when you use our advertisers by the way, but you'll be helping yourself out a lot more if you're looking to hire.

00:33:46.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.

00:33:48.000 ZipRecruiter is the smartest way to hire. 1.00

00:33:50.000 Go check them out right now.

00:33:51.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.

00:33:53.000 OK, in just a second, we'll get to the latest on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, plus the president of the United States preparing later today.

00:34:00.000 To announce some sort of executive action on the census.

00:34:04.000 We'll explain whether this is a good idea or whether this is a bad idea, whether it's a constitutional crisis.

00:34:09.000 Everybody likes that phrase.

00:34:10.000 We'll get to that in just a few minutes.

00:34:12.000 First, great news gang!

00:34:13.000 If you've ever wondered what it would be like to sit in on an episode of our backstage live show, and why wouldn't you wonder that?

00:34:18.000 I mean, doesn't everyone?

00:34:19.000 With a chance to ask us a question in person, your time has come.

00:34:23.000 We are taking the show on the road, August 21st, to the Terrace Theatre in Long Beach, California.

00:34:27.000 That is correct.

00:34:29.000 I, Daily Wire godking Jeremy Boring, Andrew Clavin, the ex-Gribble Michael Knowles, and even more important than Knowles, the Daily Wire merchandise table will be there.

00:34:36.000 Live.

00:34:37.000 The merchandise table will be dead.

00:34:39.000 All the rest of us will be alive.

00:34:40.000 Unfortunately, in the case of Knowles.

00:34:42.000 Tickets are on sale right now at dailywire.com slash backstage.

00:34:45.000 There's still a few VIP ticket packages available.

00:34:48.000 Those include premium seating, photos, and meet and greets of each of us.

00:34:51.000 A gift from me.

00:34:52.000 I mean, I'm out shopping for it right now just for you.

00:34:54.000 And more.

00:34:55.000 So head on over to dailywire.com slash backstage.

00:34:57.000 Get your tickets.

00:34:58.000 We will see you there.

00:34:59.000 You never know, it might be a locket.

00:35:00.000 A locket with a picture.

00:35:01.000 I don't know what it's gonna be yet, guys.

00:35:03.000 Head on over to dailywire.com slash backstage and get those tickets.

00:35:06.000 Also, Give us your subscriptions.

00:35:08.000 Like really, it helps us.

00:35:09.000 It protects us from the vicissitudes of the nasty left which tries to deprive us of our advertisers and tries to deplatform us.

00:35:16.000 Go over to dailywire.com right now and subscribe.

00:35:18.000 $9.99 a month.

00:35:19.000 $99 a year gets you this.

00:35:21.000 The greatest in all beverage vessels.

00:35:24.000 Check that out right there.

00:35:25.000 You get that for $99 a year.

00:35:27.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:35:31.000 All righty, so the big story of yesterday, aside from the AOC-Nancy Pelosi smash up, which was just wonderful.

00:35:46.000 Aside from that, it was Alex Acosta, the Secretary of Labor, defending himself from allegations that he cut a sweetheart deal with alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who's apparently engaged in high level sex trafficking of minors.

00:35:58.000 And there are all sorts of questions that are still out there about Jeffrey Epstein.

00:36:01.000 Like, how did this guy make so much money?

00:36:04.000 Apparently, there's no record of him being like this wonderful investment specialist.

00:36:08.000 So how did he make his billions of dollars buying private islands and all this?

00:36:11.000 Where did this money come from?

00:36:13.000 How did he get away with this for so long?

00:36:15.000 Why was it that Cyrus Vance, the DA over in Manhattan, why did he try to keep Epstein from being registered as a top-level sex offender once Epstein moved full-time to New York?

00:36:28.000 Why exactly was he not required to check in with the NYPD every 90 days as he would be as a high-level sex offender?

00:36:35.000 He never checked in at all over an eight-year span.

00:36:37.000 How was he able to get away with that?

00:36:38.000 This stuff goes beyond Alex Acosta.

00:36:41.000 Jim Garrity over at National Review has a good rundown on some of these questions.

00:36:44.000 He says, how did Jeffrey Epstein make that fortune?

00:36:46.000 One claim, a massive Ponzi scheme, but wouldn't that bring the securities folks down on his head?

00:36:51.000 Could Epstein really have been connected to some sort of intelligence service?

00:36:54.000 There were reports yesterday that maybe the reason Epstein was left alone is because he was connected with the intelligence services and doing work for them.

00:37:01.000 When asked about this, Alex Acosta offered a weird, vague, contradictory, meandering answer.

00:37:06.000 If Epstein was working for some sort of spy agency, which one?

00:37:10.000 What was the aim?

00:37:11.000 Collecting blackmail on prominent figures?

00:37:12.000 Who's being blackmailed?

00:37:14.000 There's an allegation that maybe the way he made his money is from blackmail.

00:37:17.000 Maybe the way that he made his money is he was trafficking all these underage women, underage girls as young as 14, 13 years old, having them in compromising positions with older men who are very powerful and then blackmailing those guys for cash.

00:37:32.000 After Epstein, as I say, was handed that level three sex offender status, he was required to check in with the NYPD.

00:37:37.000 They never required him to.

00:37:38.000 Why did the Manhattan District Attorney try to keep Epstein from being registered as a top level sex offender? 0.95

00:37:45.000 I mean, this is ridiculous.

00:37:47.000 Apparently, a seasoned sex crimes prosecutor from Vance's office argued forcefully in court that Epstein should not be registered that way in New York as a sex offender in New York. 0.81

00:37:56.000 The judge said, I have to tell you this, I'm a little overwhelmed.

00:37:58.000 I've never seen a prosecutor's office do anything like this.

00:38:01.000 How is it that his private island off St.

00:38:03.000 Thomas got the nickname pedophile island?

00:38:05.000 And how did that not exactly get the authorities snooping around?

00:38:09.000 Bill Clinton's public statements about his interactions with Epstein, those are wildly inaccurate.

00:38:14.000 They are contradicted by contemporaneous media accounts as well as FAA flight logs.

00:38:20.000 Also, apparently, President Trump, it was quoted in a recent Vanity Fair article, there was an article about Trump and David Pecker of National Enquirer, in which Trump apparently told Pecker that the pictures of Clinton that Epstein had from his island were worse.

00:38:35.000 Now, did Clinton visit the island?

00:38:38.000 Unclear.

00:38:39.000 Does Epstein have that sort of material?

00:38:41.000 Why did Alex Acosta cut him such a sweetheart deal?

00:38:44.000 There are contradictory, there are sort of contradictory accounts as to how sweetheart the deal was.

00:38:48.000 Ken White, Pope had on Twitter, he says that this deal is the sweetest deal he's ever seen.

00:38:53.000 He has an article over at the Atlantic saying, quote, the Jeffrey Epstein case is like nothing I've ever seen before.

00:38:58.000 He said, great wealth insulates people from consequences, but not always, absolutely, or forever.

00:39:04.000 He talks about the fact that this deal basically prevented further prosecution in the area.

00:39:10.000 What in the hell was going on?

00:39:11.000 And then on the other hand, you have a woman named Kimberly Melman Roscoe writing for USA Today, who is a an expert witness on sex trafficking.

00:39:18.000 And she says, I've seen deals like this before.

00:39:19.000 So how out of the ordinary is all of this?

00:39:23.000 All of this is is deeply troubling and upsetting, of course, and the fact that And the fact that, you know, all the facts are going to come out means there will be, as I've been saying for days, a lot more shoes to drop.

00:39:35.000 Okay, meanwhile, the other big news of the day is that President Trump is about to take executive action on a census citizenship question that is supposed to happen at like 2 o'clock today Pacific time, 5 o'clock p.m.

00:39:48.000 Eastern.

00:39:49.000 And according to Margaret Talev, reporting for Bloomberg, President Trump will announce executive action on the 2020 U.S.

00:39:55.000 Census on Thursday, pursuing his fight to include a citizenship question in the decennial population count, despite being rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

00:40:03.000 The executive action is expected to be announced at a news conference, according to three people familiar with Trump's plan.

00:40:08.000 They declined to detail the action.

00:40:09.000 They indicated it may not be an executive order.

00:40:11.000 It may instead be the far vaguer executive action.

00:40:14.000 An executive order has at least some precedent in American law.

00:40:16.000 Typically, executive orders Trump announced that he announced the news conference in a tweet talking about the social media summit.

00:40:22.000 In executive action, it's unclear what exactly that constitutes, and it has a far murkier status in American constitutional law because it's kind of made up is the truth.

00:40:30.000 Trump announced that he would be previewing.

00:40:34.000 He announced the news conference in a tweet talking about the social media summit.

00:40:38.000 He said, at the conclusion of the social media summit, we will all go to the beautiful Rose Garden for a news conference on the census and citizenship.

00:40:45.000 So there are a couple of theories about exactly what Trump is going to do later this afternoon.

00:40:50.000 Obviously, the Supreme Court has denounced the census question, saying that it was pretextual, the rationale provided by the Trump administration.

00:40:56.000 It was an absurd decision.

00:40:57.000 We talked about it on the show.

00:40:59.000 The idea of the Supreme Court is now going to look at the relevant and correct provided rationales for asking something as simple as, are you a citizen on the census?

00:41:08.000 And then they're going to say, the real reason you're doing this is because you're racist.

00:41:12.000 And so we're not going to allow you to do it.

00:41:14.000 That is far beyond the boundaries of what the judiciary should be allowed to do or is allowed to do under their constitutionally delegated status.

00:41:22.000 This leaves Trump with a couple of possible options.

00:41:25.000 One of those options is more controversial and one of those options is less controversial.

00:41:29.000 The option that is less controversial The option that is less controversial is the option that basically President Trump invokes a specific provision of the Constitution and says, I have a constitutional duty to ask this question.

00:41:43.000 Josh Hammer, editor at large over here at Daily Wire, he points out that there is a provision of the Constitution in the 14th amendment section 2 text that says this when the right to vote is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state being 21 years of age and citizens of the united states or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such state

00:42:13.000 So what does that mean?

00:42:14.000 The 14th Amendment basically says that if a state abridges the right to vote, it was written to stop southern states from stopping black people from voting, that the federal government could then abridge the voting power of that state.

00:42:27.000 Congressional reapportionment would take place wherein there would be a two variable formula and each variable would require citizenship data.

00:42:35.000 So in other words, in order to make possible the implementation of this clause, you do have to have an accurate count of the number of people in the country legally in a particular district.

00:42:45.000 That would be the case.

00:42:47.000 That the White House, that the executive branch is mandated to do this by the 14th Amendment, Section 2.

00:42:54.000 That seems fairly clear-cut, actually.

00:42:56.000 So that is the less controversial way of doing it.

00:42:58.000 There's a solid legal rationale.

00:43:00.000 It seems fairly unchallengeable.

00:43:02.000 What is the Supreme Court going to say?

00:43:03.000 We will not allow you to ask a question that you are constitutionally mandated to ask so that you can actually fulfill the obligations of Amendment 14?

00:43:12.000 That is the less controversial way of doing it.

00:43:14.000 The more controversial way of doing it is Trump just says, screw you to the Supreme Court and goes ahead and puts a censorship question on there.

00:43:20.000 Doesn't offer any rationale and says, listen, we have the power under the Census Act.

00:43:23.000 If Congress wants to deprive us of that power, it can do so at any time, but we are not bound by extraordinary judicial decisions.

00:43:31.000 Now, on the one hand, I like the first move because it is indeed less controversial legally and it's a pretty obvious out.

00:43:38.000 On the other hand, I have long been an advocate of the notion of departmentalism.

00:43:44.000 Departmentalism is the basic idea that the Supreme Court does not get to tell all of the other branches that its interpretation of the Constitution is paramount.

00:43:51.000 There's a difference, in other words, between judicial review and judicial supremacy.

00:43:54.000 So judicial review is the idea that the Supreme Court and the judiciary of the United States has the ability to decide whether it will apply a law that is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

00:44:05.000 But that is not judicial supremacy, meaning that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution itself is not paramount.

00:44:15.000 They are not kings.

00:44:16.000 They are not caddies sitting under trees deciding how the Constitution is to be applied to everyone.

00:44:21.000 That the Supreme Court does not get to tell every other branch how to do its business, especially because they're unelected.

00:44:27.000 How would that work in practice?

00:44:28.000 Well, it would work like this.

00:44:29.000 Let's say that there is a piece of legislation that the Supreme Court found to be unconstitutional.

00:44:35.000 Well, then the judiciary of the United States would simply refuse to apply that law at all.

00:44:40.000 It would become inoperative in the judicial system.

00:44:44.000 And what would happen if the other branches decided that, let's say, the executive branch wanted to go ahead with something like the census question?

00:44:50.000 Well, then it falls to Congress, doesn't it?

00:44:51.000 Which is where it should be.

00:44:53.000 That's where it should be.

00:44:54.000 If Congress wants to take back power from the presidency, they can do that at any time by revising the Census Act.

00:44:59.000 That is all they have to do.

00:45:00.000 This is a political question.

00:45:02.000 The Marbury v. Madison decision, which has been, there's a solid case to be made, it has been misread for years to suggest judicial supremacy rather than judicial review.

00:45:11.000 The Marbury vs. Madison decision is a very untenable decision legally.

00:45:15.000 That is not just my opinion, that's the opinion of folks like Alexander Bickel, former Yale law professor who wrote a very famous book called The Least Dangerous Branch.

00:45:22.000 It's the opinion of University of Minnesota law professor Michael Stokes Paulson.

00:45:27.000 Judge Lorne and Hand were the most famous Jurists of the 20th century made the same point.

00:45:32.000 Marbury v. Madison is a very, very weak decision.

00:45:34.000 And the idea that the judiciary is paramount and has the sole authority to decide the role of the Constitution in American life is obviously not supported by either law or theory.

00:45:47.000 When you read the Federalist Papers, even folks who believe that Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton backs the notion of judicial supremacy ignore the part where Hamilton specifically says, if the judiciary starts to Use will instead of power, it would obviate the need for a separate branch called the judiciary.

00:46:03.000 They would then become a dictatorship.

00:46:05.000 So judicial review, departmentalism, in which basically each department gets to decide which, how the constitution is to be interpreted.

00:46:14.000 And then there's interplay between the various branches of government.

00:46:17.000 That seems more like the checks and balances the founders had in mind than the artificially created power of judicial supremacy, which really didn't come into full fledge Until, like, the Dred Scott decision, the worst decision in the history of the United States.

00:46:30.000 So, we'll talk, I'm sure, a little bit more about this a little bit later when we find out exactly what President Trump is doing here.

00:46:36.000 Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.

00:46:38.000 So, speaking of checks and balances, the basis for checks and balances in American legal theory comes largely courtesy of Baron de Montesquieu.

00:46:47.000 You've all heard Montesquieu's name, if you've had any level of familiarity with founding-era ideology.

00:46:52.000 Montesquieu was the philosopher who was cited most often in founding-era papers in founding era documents.

00:46:58.000 Monski, of course, a French philosopher.

00:47:00.000 He wrote a book called The Spirit of the Laws.

00:47:02.000 It's a seven and 800 page book.

00:47:04.000 There's a very good Cambridge edition that cleans it up just a little bit, or translates it at least in the clearest possible way.

00:47:11.000 And Montesquieu's two basic contributions to American philosophy are the idea of political liberty, meaning that government is there to provide a sort of safe backdrop for you to exercise your liberty, but liberty is not you get to do whatever you want.

00:47:25.000 Liberty has to be circumscribed by your ability to harm somebody else.

00:47:29.000 And also the idea of checks and balances.

00:47:31.000 So checks and balances come directly from Montesquieu.

00:47:33.000 Montesquieu talks specifically about the need for power to balance power and ambition to balance ambition.

00:47:39.000 Half of the Federalist Papers is straight Montesquieu.

00:47:41.000 So this is, it's worth the read.

00:47:43.000 It is not an easy read.

00:47:44.000 There's a lot of history.

00:47:45.000 It's sort of the first comparative political work.

00:47:47.000 So he tries to compare the various legal systems of everything from China to India to France to Britain and tries to figure out what is the best system.

00:47:55.000 He talks about what he terms sort of the tripartite distinction in governments between despotism monarchy and republicanism he talks about sort of the motivating factors behind each he says the monarchy is driven by a sense of honor that despotism is driven by power and that republicanism is driven by a sense of virtue uh and there's a lot there it's well it's well worth the read i'm using it heavily i'm writing another book right now all about rights and duties and uh montesquieu comes into play

00:48:23.000 so give that a read if you're interested in founding era philosophy okay time for some things that i hate Oh.

00:48:32.000 Okay, so, thing that I hate, number one.

00:48:35.000 One of the things that you are starting to see in American life is the decline of religion, but religion itself is not declining.

00:48:41.000 It is just being supplanted by either a sort of atavistic, narcissistic Weird self-focus, or it's being supplanted with political religion.

00:48:55.000 And those are the two substitutes.

00:48:57.000 There's the political religion of leftism, which has its own system of virtue and penalties.

00:49:01.000 It has its own system of sin.

00:49:03.000 Sins that can never be expiated, by the way. 1.00

00:49:05.000 If you ever commit a sin under the system of leftism, it can never be wiped away unless you do full penance.

00:49:11.000 And even then, we will still hold the sin over your head if you become politically unavailable or you do something that crosses the party line, then you will be, the sin will be brought back up and used against you.

00:49:24.000 Political religion has become the way that we do our politics right now, which is why you see such near religious feeling about politics.

00:49:32.000 You're starting to see people who don't actually have church communities and don't talk with their friends and don't talk with their neighbors.

00:49:39.000 And they're supplanting this with a sense of religious virtue when it comes to an undoubted religious virtue when it comes to their own politics.

00:49:46.000 So if you disagree with prevailing views about how climate change should be dealt with, namely with vast transnational regulation, if you oppose that, then you are a denier.

00:49:56.000 I mean, this is religious type language.

00:49:58.000 You are then a denier even if you accept that climate change is happening just like the IPCC says it is.

00:50:03.000 If you disagree with the left's prevailing wisdom about income inequality, then you have sinned, and you are in all likelihood a plutocrat and a white supremacist.

00:50:12.000 If you are somebody who believes that the chief method of escaping poverty in the United States is not railing against phantom institutional racism, and when I say phantom, I don't mean that racism doesn't exist in American society.

00:50:23.000 It very clearly does.

00:50:24.000 I'm saying that institutional racism, meaning laws on the books, Things you can point out where you say this institution is acting in this racist manner specifically designed to harm this class of people.

00:50:36.000 You supplant that for if you say that is less effective as a strategy it is first of all not true and second of all it is less effective as a strategy than encouraging people to make proper individual decisions.

00:50:48.000 If you say that you have violated the left's sense of political sin.

00:50:52.000 So there is this political religion out there and leftism feels it in abundance, which is why you see from the left the sort of Megan Rapinoe attitude, which is, I'm not going to talk to anybody who disagrees with me. 0.99

00:51:01.000 They are sinners and they must be cast into the hell flames. 0.96

00:51:05.000 And then, there is actual paganism. 1.00

00:51:08.000 And there is a return.

00:51:09.000 Listen, people have religious instincts.

00:51:11.000 The religious instinct is twofold.

00:51:12.000 One, to put an organized principle on all of life, to look at the patterns around us in the world, and try to discern those patterns, and try to figure out what exactly is going on around us.

00:51:22.000 This is what the human brain does.

00:51:24.000 And that leads, in some cases, to the idea of a unifying creator who created a natural plan.

00:51:29.000 This is how you get to the idea of natural law.

00:51:31.000 You can also get to the idea that there is some phantom hand of economics that stands behind everything.

00:51:36.000 So that instinct, that is a religious instinct to try and put an order on everything.

00:51:40.000 It also happens to lead to beliefs about science.

00:51:42.000 So it's a good instinct, but it has to be channeled in the proper direction.

00:51:46.000 And then there is the other aspect of religious thought, which is the need for Believe in something beyond that which we can see.

00:51:54.000 They need to believe something, because here's the problem.

00:51:57.000 You have that religious instinct to put a pattern on everything, but there are a lot of things that don't fit the pattern.

00:52:01.000 So where exactly do you put those things?

00:52:03.000 Well, in the religious, kind of traditionally Judeo-Christian worldview, you say, listen, God has a plan, I have a plan, my plan is not God's plan, God's plan is beyond me.

00:52:11.000 But then there's still the need for mysticism for people who don't believe.

00:52:15.000 In the Judeo-Christian system or in a monotheistic system at all.

00:52:18.000 And so they find that need for a mystical outreach to something beyond them.

00:52:22.000 Something beyond their own flesh and bones.

00:52:24.000 And they find this in some of the weirdest places.

00:52:26.000 Lately, they've been seeking it in everything from kind of self-help gurus to healing crystals.

00:52:31.000 There's an article in the LA Times today called, How Millennials Replaced Religion with Astrology and Crystals.

00:52:37.000 This makes sense, by the way, because again, the religious instinct, in some ways, that first religious instinct to put order on chaos, It's very similar to the scientific instinct.

00:52:46.000 And so science and religion don't have to be in conflict.

00:52:49.000 In fact, I make the case in my book The Right Side of History that Judeo-Christian religion combined with Greek teleology actually led to the rise of Western science.

00:52:59.000 And that, in fact, you could combine Greek teleology with other monotheistic religions and probably create Science, that would be just as good if you could maintain that balance.

00:53:08.000 But when you get away from the idea of a god who stands behind an ordered universe, then you throw away science too.

00:53:16.000 Once you get to the universe is chaotic and you just sort of worship at the altar of the chaos, you get back to astrology and crystals.

00:53:23.000 So here's what the LA Times says, quote, I love myself.

00:53:25.000 I am beautiful.

00:53:26.000 It was an unseasonably chilly night for June in Los Angeles.

00:53:29.000 About three dozen people, mostly women in their 20s and 30s, were spending their Friday evening lying on yoga mats on the back patio of a shop a few blocks from Hollywood Forever Cemetery and the Paramount Pictures lot.

00:53:39.000 Attendees had been invited to bring whatever they needed to make the space cozy.

00:53:42.000 Blankets, pillows, crystals.

00:53:44.000 I am powerful.

00:53:45.000 Anna Lilia was leading them in affirmations, closing out a 90-minute breathwork session celebrating the summer solstice.

00:53:52.000 I am a bright light.

00:53:53.000 I am ready to be seen.

00:53:55.000 Most days, Lilia works with individual clients.

00:53:58.000 In the evenings, she teaches classes or puts on events such as the Solstice Gathering.

00:54:02.000 She first got into breathwork four years ago and started taking classes to become a teacher six months later.

00:54:06.000 If you've never done it before, it's a mix of breathing exercises and guided meditations meant to relax you and help connect with your inner thoughts, a cross between the last 10 minutes of a yoga class and a therapy session that takes place entirely in your head.

00:54:18.000 She's one of a growing number of young people, largely millennials, though the trend extends to younger Gen Xers, now cresting 40, And down to Gen Z, the oldest of whom are freshly minted college grads.

00:54:27.000 Now, the L.A.

00:54:28.000 Times is a journalistic outlet. 0.98

00:54:29.000 You would think that they would say, embracing crap like tarot, astrology, energy healing, and crystals. 0.94

00:54:32.000 like tarot, like tarot, tarot, astrology, astrology, meditation, energy healing, and crystals. 0.98

00:54:40.000 Now, the LA Times is a journalistic outlet. 0.90

00:54:42.000 You would think that they would say embracing crap like tarot, astrology, energy healing, and crystals. 0.99

00:54:48.000 Meditation is an actual, like, there's some scientific proof that meditation helps relax you, but energy healing, crystals, tarot, astrology, all this is garbage. 0.99

00:54:56.000 And no, they don't particularly care if you think it's woo-woo or weird.

00:55:00.000 Most millennials claim not to take any of it too seriously themselves.

00:55:03.000 They dabble.

00:55:04.000 They find what they like.

00:55:04.000 They take what works for them and leave the rest.

00:55:06.000 Evoking consternation from buttoned-up outsiders is far from a drawback.

00:55:10.000 It's a fringe benefit.

00:55:12.000 The cause behind the spiritual shift is a combination of factors.

00:55:15.000 In more than a dozen interviews for this story, with people ranging in age from 18 to their early 40s, a common theme emerged.

00:55:20.000 They were raised with one set of religious beliefs, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, but as they became adults, they felt that faith didn't completely represent who they were or what they believed.

00:55:28.000 I'll tell you what the common thread there is.

00:55:30.000 Probably they grew up in not particularly religious households, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, for sure Jewish.

00:55:35.000 Okay, I'll speak to Jewish.

00:55:36.000 The vast majority of people who are doing this did not grow up in religious Jewish households.

00:55:40.000 The Jews who are doing this. 1.00

00:55:41.000 They grew up in reformed Jewish households, maybe conservative Jewish households, likely reconstructionist Jewish households.

00:55:46.000 In other words, households that didn't actually explain...

00:55:49.000 What Judaism was, what its standards were, what the spirituality of Judaism is, that had watered down religion to the point where it was basically a soft form of spirituality anyway, and then they just went and searched for another soft form of spirituality that didn't come along with the judgmentalism.

00:56:03.000 That is really what people are going for.

00:56:05.000 And you're seeing this is spanning the oceans as well.

00:56:07.000 There's a report today from the UK that says that less than 1% of young people identify as Church of England in the UK, which was the official Church of England, Only 1% of people aged 18-24 identify as Church of England according to the British Social Attitude Survey for 2018.

00:56:24.000 Even among over 75, the most religious age group, only 1 in 3 people describe themselves as Church of England.

00:56:33.000 52% of the public now say they do not belong to any religion.

00:56:36.000 It was 31% in 1983 when the survey began tracking religious belief.

00:56:42.000 The number of people identifying as Christian has now fallen from 66% to 38% in Britain.

00:56:46.000 Now there are a lot of people who say, who cares?

00:56:48.000 What's the big deal?

00:56:50.000 The reason that it's a big deal is because, again, there is a human instinct for religious belief, and it is going to be filled by something, whether it is a religious following of a political figure, which is what you are increasingly seeing, whether it is religious following of a political ideal, the substitution of the environment for God, for example, the substitution of particular ideas of equality for ideas of an ordered universe.

00:57:13.000 And that's bad.

00:57:15.000 So there was a point in human history when religion was politics.

00:57:19.000 When rulership was done via theocracy, and when most of the wars that we had were internecine religious wars, when it was Protestant vs. Catholic, and Catholic vs. Muslim, and Muslim and Catholic vs. Jew.

00:57:33.000 And that was very, very bad.

00:57:35.000 Religious warfare is the worst kind of warfare because there is literally no way to have a conversation. 1.00

00:57:39.000 You cannot have a conversation with somebody when your belief is that they are going directly to hell, and you're going directly to heaven, and that is the subject of the conversation.

00:57:47.000 You can't have conversations that way.

00:57:49.000 Religious conflict is religious warfare. 1.00

00:57:52.000 But when politics falls back into the realm of religion, undoubted religious belief systems, you're going to end up with exactly that same sort of conflict again.

00:58:01.000 So we moved away from religious conflict and toward political conflict.

00:58:04.000 And political conflict was us having secular arguments with one another about right and wrong.

00:58:10.000 A lot of those arguments were rooted in the Judeo-Christian value system.

00:58:13.000 In fact, nearly all of them were.

00:58:14.000 But those arguments taking place in that common framework of a value system rather than a specific doctrinal belief system, that led to the rise of small-r republicanism and elections and the idea that, sure, we can agree to disagree.

00:58:29.000 And now what we are seeing is as that religious instinct wanes, as people no longer fulfill that religious instinct by going to church or by going to synagogue, instead they're fulfilling it with politics itself.

00:58:38.000 So we took politics and we removed religion from it.

00:58:42.000 Except for sort of the over-lasting morality of religion.

00:58:45.000 And now, politics is becoming religion.

00:58:48.000 It's its own religion now.

00:58:49.000 And so you're going to return to the religious warfare of the past, where your religious belief is defined by your politics itself.

00:58:56.000 And I don't mean like you're a member of a church that's political.

00:58:58.000 I mean that the politics itself is the religion.

00:59:01.000 And everyone who disagrees with you is cast into eternal hellfire.

00:59:04.000 That is where we're going.

00:59:05.000 It's very, very bad for a small-r republic.

00:59:08.000 It is very bad for a democracy to turn politics into religion.

00:59:12.000 Incredibly, incredibly dangerous because there is nothing to bind us anymore.

00:59:15.000 And that's the other fact.

00:59:16.000 As religion declines, religion is one of those areas where people find commonality in diversity.

00:59:23.000 You can have a diverse group of people if they are all oriented toward the same thing.

00:59:26.000 So Robert Putnam, sociologist over at Harvard University, he talks about the fact that ethnic diversity is not necessarily strengthening to a community.

00:59:34.000 In fact, he uses the sort of throwaway line, but it's not really throwaway, it's sociology.

00:59:39.000 He uses the survey line, the database line, that as ethnic diversity increases in a community, the only two things that increase are protest marches and television watching.

00:59:48.000 But he says that what can unify a community is a central sense of identity, a sense that we are all oriented in the same direction, that we are all praying to the same God, for example, that we are all going to the same church.

00:59:58.000 So diversity is enriching and is good when you share a set of common values.

01:00:03.000 So in a church, in the army.

01:00:05.000 So what is that set of common values going to be?

01:00:08.000 We've seen a bunch of attempts to create a set of common values.

01:00:11.000 So nationalism has been posited as a possible solution to this, a nationalistic ideal.

01:00:18.000 But the problem is that nationalism isn't necessarily good or evil.

01:00:21.000 There can be German nationalism circa 1930.

01:00:23.000 There can be American nationalism circa 1941.

01:00:25.000 These are very different nationalisms and one is good and one is really, really not.

01:00:30.000 It depends on the nature of the nationalism.

01:00:32.000 So can that fill the gap?

01:00:34.000 Only if it turns out that the nationalism itself is a vessel that is filled with a philosophy, a philosophy rooted in exactly the Judeo-Christian value systems that are now being thrown away.

01:00:43.000 So I'm not sure empty nationalism does the trick.

01:00:46.000 How about the constitutional values?

01:00:48.000 Now, I've said that you can believe constitutional values.

01:00:50.000 You can believe the philosophies of the founding without being a religious human being.

01:00:54.000 In fact, many of the founders were tended toward deism.

01:00:57.000 You can do that.

01:00:58.000 But they were running on the fumes of the Judeo-Christian value system.

01:01:02.000 The vast majority of our founders were, in fact, practicing Christians.

01:01:06.000 They certainly did not disdain religion in the same way that our politicians do now and as much of our population does.

01:01:12.000 As we throw away the fundamental bases for the philosophy that created the West, can that philosophy itself last in an era of secularism?

01:01:21.000 I'm not sure that it can.

01:01:22.000 I mean, this is what my book, The Right Side of History, is all about.

01:01:25.000 So, and then finally, there's a third factor.

01:01:28.000 As you throw away religion, as I mentioned earlier, as you throw away the idea of an ordered universe, where the human mind is capable of understanding things around it, these are religious principles. 0.51

01:01:37.000 These are principles that you cannot suss out.

01:01:40.000 You cannot rationality these things.

01:01:42.000 You cannot use your rationality to get to these fundamental principles.

01:01:46.000 You have to just assume them.

01:01:48.000 Once you get rid of those fundamental principles, you end up back in this bizarre, paganistic world where everything is defined by you, yourself.

01:01:55.000 The only perception that matters is your subjective perception.

01:01:58.000 And so, if you believe in healing crystals, then healing crystals are true.

01:02:00.000 If you believe in energy healing, then energy healing is true.

01:02:03.000 It doesn't matter.

01:02:04.000 Science, which is an objective standard, which puts, again, a framework of logic on the universe, that no longer matters because we've thrown away the framework of logic.

01:02:12.000 Why should the universe operate by laws or rules?

01:02:15.000 What suggests that it does?

01:02:18.000 We're playing with fire here, and we are in the middle of one of the great experiments in human history, and that experiment is whether you can take the moral and philosophic basis of the richest, most powerful, most progressive system in world history, throw away the basis, and keep the rest.

01:02:36.000 I am very doubtful that that is going to be the case as we move forward in time.

01:02:40.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content, and then we will be back here tomorrow as well.

01:02:45.000 We'll see you then.

01:02:45.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:02:45.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:02:48.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

01:02:54.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

01:02:56.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:02:58.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.

01:03:00.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.

01:03:02.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.

01:03:04.000 Edited by Adam Sievitz.

01:03:06.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:03:08.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

01:03:10.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.

01:03:12.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:03:14.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

01:03:16.000 Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, Beto O'Rourke went and met with some refugees and immigrants and he proceeded to trash America, America's racist, horrible country, so on and so forth.

01:03:25.000 What a great guy Beto O'Rourke is.

01:03:27.000 We'll talk about that today.

01:03:28.000 Also, AOC, speaking of great people, AOC basically implies that Nancy Pelosi is racist, which It's kind of hilarious, but also disgusting, and we'll talk about that.

01:03:40.000 Finally, I want to discuss the very common modern practice of filming troubled people in the midst of mental breakdowns so that we can laugh at them online. 0.97

The Ben Shapiro Show - July 11, 2019

Of Freshness and Faceness | Ep. 815

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript