The Ben Shapiro Show - Supreme Betrayal | Ep. 1042

00:00:00.000 Chief Justice John Roberts plays legal games to strike down another pro-life law.

00:00:04.000 Corporations pull back from social media to avoid political blowback.

00:00:07.000 And COVID continues to spike.

00:00:09.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:11.000 Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.com.

00:00:19.000 Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash ben.

00:00:24.000 I have a lot to get to today.

00:00:25.000 First, there's a lot of uncertainty out there right now.

00:00:28.000 You want stability, especially with your investments.

00:00:30.000 A couple of weeks ago, the Dow dropped 1,700 points in one day because of fear.

00:00:34.000 Fear of coronavirus resurgence and fear from the Fed.

00:00:36.000 Loomy Outlook expected spending of $10 trillion this year to fight the effects of COVID-19.

00:00:42.000 Your grandkids will be paying for this.

00:00:43.000 We are all going to be paying for this.

00:00:45.000 We may be paying for it with an inflated dollar.

00:00:47.000 We may be paying for it with higher taxes.

00:00:48.000 Bottom line is, you want to be diversified in your assets, and taking a look at precious metals would be a smart move right now.

00:00:52.000 It would have been a smart move several months ago.

00:00:54.000 You'd be really, really up on your money.

00:00:56.000 Text Ben to 474747.

00:00:58.000 When you purchase on or before July 31st, you get a free signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History, from my friends over at Birch Gold.

00:01:03.000 Ask them all your questions.

00:01:04.000 They're the people I trust with precious metals investing.

00:01:06.000 Birch Gold will go to work for you and make things super simple. 0.67

00:01:09.000 Text Ben to 474747.

00:01:11.000 At least request a free information kit on diversifying into gold.

00:01:14.000 I always tell you, get fully informed before you spend your money.

00:01:16.000 Ask all your questions to my friends over at Birchgold and get informed before you invest.

00:01:21.000 Text Ben to 474747.

00:01:22.000 No obligation.

00:01:23.000 Birchgold has thousands of satisfied customers.

00:01:25.000 Countless.

00:01:26.000 Five star reviews.

00:01:27.000 A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.

00:01:29.000 Protect your family by protecting your savings the way I did.

00:01:32.000 By investing in gold with Birch Gold Group.

00:01:33.000 Text Ben to 474747.

00:01:36.000 During the months of June or July, when you open an IRA in precious metals, you get a signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History, for free.

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

00:01:43.000 We're going to get to a little bit later on in the program.

00:01:48.000 The Elizabeth Warren claim that it is time for all of us to become anti-racist.

00:01:51.000 I'm going to explain the difference between being a not racist and being an anti-racist in the view of people who are on the left and why it is that they have perverted the definition of racism in order to basically suggest that anyone who doesn't like favored leftist policies is in fact a racist.

00:02:03.000 That's what they mean by anti-racism.

00:02:04.000 We'll get to that.

00:02:05.000 We'll also get to COVID where, again, the gap continues to increase between The number of identified cases and the number of deaths in the United States on a day-on-day level, the number of deaths by COVID in the United States continues to decline or at least remain steady.

00:02:18.000 The idea that we are seeing this massive increase in death so far is just not true.

00:02:22.000 It is possible that that death increase will happen.

00:02:24.000 But one of the reasons for this, the vast proportion of people who are getting COVID at this point are people who are young and those people are not dying of COVID.

00:02:31.000 The hospitalization rates are rising.

00:02:32.000 They're not rising so dramatically that they have overwhelmed the system.

00:02:35.000 You would have expected, given the positivity rates that we've been seeing in states like California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, the systems already would have been swamped.

00:02:42.000 That, in fact, is not what is happening.

00:02:44.000 What is happening instead is that a huge number of people are asymptomatic.

00:02:47.000 It is also possible a lot of people who are coming in for hospitalizations for other reasons are being identified with COVID.

00:02:53.000 Meaning that they're not coming in necessarily for COVID, but you're being identified as somebody with COVID because you came in for another reason.

00:02:59.000 And so you're hospitalized with COVID, even if you're not ICU.

00:03:01.000 The real question is not really hospitalizations so much as it is ICUs.

00:03:05.000 We are not at the state where we believe that the ICUs are going to be overwhelmed in any of the states thus far.

00:03:09.000 So we'll get to that in just a little bit.

00:03:11.000 First, we begin with Chief Justice John Roberts.

00:03:14.000 You know, I hate saying I told you so, except that I love saying I told you so.

00:03:17.000 I only hate saying I told you so when the thing that I told you so turns out to be bad for the country.

00:03:23.000 That thing I told you so about Chief Justice John Roberts.

00:03:25.000 So all the way back, all the way back, long ago in the hazy memory of yesteryear, back in 2005.

00:03:32.000 When John Roberts was elected to the Supreme Court, I, and perhaps only I, said Chief Justice John Roberts would not be a good justice.

00:03:38.000 There was no evidence he was going to be a good justice.

00:03:40.000 He had no record of textualist or originalist jurisprudence.

00:03:44.000 He was basically just a guy.

00:03:45.000 He was a guy recommended by some people over at Federalist Society.

00:03:48.000 And my view on judges is very simple.

00:03:50.000 If they do not have a long, clear record of originalism, then they should not be put on the Supreme Court.

00:03:55.000 Now, the left has a very easy test of its own, which is they just ask straight out how their judges are going to vote on things.

00:04:00.000 They will just ask straight out if their judge is going to vote to uphold Roe v. Wade or is going to overturn Heller v. D.C.

00:04:07.000 They'll just ask these people straight up because the left is honest about its own justices and what they want from them.

00:04:11.000 They don't want any sort of interpretation.

00:04:13.000 They just want the leftist policy point.

00:04:15.000 People on the right, however, play this game where we can't ask those questions.

00:04:19.000 It's just not civil.

00:04:20.000 It's just not good.

00:04:21.000 And if we ask those questions, then maybe Democrats will get mad.

00:04:24.000 Well, I mean, that does show the bad faith of Democrats, because the simple fact of the matter is that people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg fly through the Senate, even though it is perfectly obvious she's going to be a wild leftist judge.

00:04:33.000 Same thing with Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 1.00

00:04:35.000 Same thing with Elena Kagan.

00:04:36.000 It's perfectly obvious that these people are going to be wildly to the left.

00:04:39.000 And Republicans will say, OK, yeah, but they're qualified, so we'll vote for them anyway.

00:04:43.000 Whereas if a Republican, if a justice who's appointed by a Republican were to say, yes, I think Roe versus Wade is a badly decided case.

00:04:51.000 Immediately done, right?

00:04:52.000 Immediately toast.

00:04:53.000 So what you end up with is a bunch of quote-unquote stealth candidates from Republicans.

00:04:57.000 How many Republican justices have turned out to be failures on behalf of conservatism or originalism or textualism?

00:05:03.000 A lot, right?

00:05:04.000 John Roberts would be one.

00:05:05.000 Too early to say on Neil Gorsuch.

00:05:07.000 Neil Gorsuch has largely been good, but he was very, very bad on that Civil Rights Act case, which he just rewrote this year.

00:05:13.000 We have seen Justice John Paul Stevens.

00:05:15.000 We have seen Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

00:05:17.000 We have seen a bevy of justices.

00:05:19.000 We've seen A serious number of justices, who's the one I'm thinking of, who was appointed by, it was Stevens and Souter, Justice David Souter, appointed by George H.W.

00:05:29.000 Bush.

00:05:30.000 There's a whole list of Republicans who have been appointing justices and the justices turn out to be just nebbishes.

00:05:37.000 Democrats hit 100% of the time.

00:05:38.000 When is the last time a Democrat appointed a justice and the justice ended up being center-right?

00:05:43.000 The answer is never.

00:05:43.000 Never.

00:05:44.000 It has never happened.

00:05:44.000 It never happened, ever.

00:05:45.000 It will never happen.

00:05:46.000 And the reason for that is the institutional pressures are very much for justices to be the people who reshape the country from the top down.

00:05:52.000 There's a lot of pressure to do that.

00:05:54.000 So unless you are somebody like Clarence Thomas, who's already been through the wars, there's a good shot that you're going to move.

00:05:58.000 Well, that's what has happened to Chief Justice John Roberts. 0.73

00:06:01.000 So yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts, in an almost unthinkably stupid decision, voted with the left of the court to rule that a law requiring the doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights. 0.81

00:06:13.000 Okay, now, there was a case just four years ago that was basically on the same topic, right, back in 2016. 0.96

00:06:20.000 There is a case in which Texas had a law.

00:06:22.000 The law was that if you're an abortion clinic, you have to have admitting privileges at a hospital. 0.99

00:06:25.000 The reason for that is you're doing an abortion, something goes wrong.

00:06:28.000 If you don't have admitting privileges at a hospital, it really gums up the works.

00:06:31.000 If you have some sort of emergency and you have to rush the person to a hospital.

00:06:34.000 So the rule in Texas was that within a certain radius, you had to have admitting privileges at that hospital.

00:06:39.000 People who are anti the law said, well, this hurts abortion clinics because abortion clinics very often can't get admitting privileges at hospitals nearby, and therefore the abortion clinic would be put out of business.

00:06:50.000 In Louisiana, there's basically apparently one major abortion clinic, and the one major abortion clinic did not have admitting privileges at any of the hospitals in a 30-mile radius, and so they challenged the law.

00:07:00.000 Now, here's the thing.

00:07:02.000 Every surgery center in Louisiana, every surgery center in Texas, has to have admitting privileges at the local hospital.

00:07:07.000 So this would exempt abortion, basically, from a rule that applies to all other surgery centers.

00:07:11.000 And let's be real about this, a DNC, which is an early to mid-stage abortion, as opposed to an extraction and dilation, which is a late-stage abortion.

00:07:19.000 Those sorts of surgeries are surgeries.

00:07:21.000 They are surgeries.

00:07:22.000 And so having admitting privileges is a good thing. 0.95

00:07:25.000 The notion that this law is patently on its face a violation of the state's ability to restrict how medical procedures are done is, of course, very, very silly.

00:07:34.000 Okay, so, you know who used to feel this way?

00:07:36.000 Chief Justice John Roberts.

00:07:37.000 Back in 2016, he voted the other way on the Texas law.

00:07:41.000 So there's a 5-4 decision in that case in favor of striking down the Texas law.

00:07:45.000 He wrote a dissent in that case.

00:07:47.000 He sided with the dissenters in that case.

00:07:49.000 He said, no, no, no, that law from Texas, that's perfectly legal.

00:07:52.000 Four years later, the exact same law comes up, and Chief Justice John Roberts decides, you know what?

00:07:57.000 On behalf of stare decisis, I'm just going to go along with this thing.

00:08:01.000 Now, stare decisis is the idea that a case has been settled.

00:08:05.000 That we have sort of a bizarre system in the United States, where we have a common law system in the judiciary, where the judiciary develops basically its own set of codes and its own set of laws, and it develops over time.

00:08:15.000 The most famous common law system is of course the British system, because the British don't really have a constitution per se, and so it really is a body of law made by judges.

00:08:25.000 The United States has a constitution, but then it also has a common law system derived from that constitution via the justices of the Supreme Court who have created their own corpus of law.

00:08:33.000 Okay, so the idea there is that stare decisis, the idea that a case has been decided, that's what stare decisis means, it has been decided.

00:08:40.000 That you don't re-litigate cases that have already been litigated.

00:08:43.000 Now, the problem, of course, is that nobody actually holds by stare decisis.

00:08:47.000 A stare decisis is basically just an excuse to hold how you want to hold.

00:08:49.000 This is what Justice Thomas has said.

00:08:51.000 That is why I've always said that I like Justice Thomas's jurisprudence better than I like Justice Scalia's jurisprudence.

00:08:56.000 Justice Scalia paid a lot of lip service to stare decisis.

00:08:59.000 Justice Thomas is like, nope.

00:09:00.000 If the case is wrong, the case is wrong.

00:09:01.000 I don't care if it was decided five years ago or 50 years ago. 0.99

00:09:03.000 The idea that we're supposed to uphold the case simply because the case has been embedded in our national culture is very stupid. 0.99

00:09:10.000 And Justice Thomas is right. 0.97

00:09:12.000 If stare decisis held, then we'd still be operating under the rule of Flessy versus Ferguson.

00:09:16.000 If stare decisis held, then we could have never overturned any of the bad cases in American history, including Dred Scott. 0.81

00:09:22.000 The idea that stare decisis is the deciding factor is obviously very silly.

00:09:27.000 And in fact, Justice Roberts doesn't even believe in stare decisis, depending on the case.

00:09:31.000 He has been on the majority side of overturning several long-standing precedents in the United States while he's been on the court.

00:09:38.000 It's a stare decisis saying, well, it's already been decided.

00:09:40.000 That would only apply if you were actually consistent in your application of stare decisis, but Justice Roberts is purely not.

00:09:45.000 So basically he just decided, you know what?

00:09:47.000 I don't want to have a big abortion fight, so I'm going to go along with the left.

00:09:50.000 And that is the guiding theme.

00:09:52.000 Every justice sort of has a guiding theme.

00:09:53.000 The guiding theme to Justice Roberts is, I don't want controversy, but I'm going to create it accidentally because I don't want controversy.

00:09:58.000 That is nearly every Justice Roberts decision.

00:10:01.000 And nearly every major on Obamacare.

00:10:03.000 I don't want controversy over striking down Obamacare.

00:10:05.000 I don't want to be responsible for striking down what is clearly an unconstitutional law.

00:10:08.000 So instead, I'm just going to say that it is kind of unconstitutional, but I'll rewrite the law.

00:10:13.000 So now it's magically constitutional to avoid controversy.

00:10:15.000 And of course, now he's plunged face first into controversy.

00:10:18.000 He did the same thing yesterday on a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau case where he could have struck down the entire Consumer Finance Protection Bureau as an unconstitutional scheme, which it is.

00:10:27.000 I'll explain in a minute.

00:10:28.000 Okay, but he didn't.

00:10:29.000 Instead, he split the baby.

00:10:30.000 He's like, okay, well, there's part of it that's unconstitutional, but we'll just rewrite the law so now it's constitutional.

00:10:35.000 And plunged himself face first into controversy.

00:10:37.000 This is what he's constantly doing.

00:10:39.000 He's constantly doing things.

00:10:40.000 He voted the wrong way on the Civil Rights Act case, suggesting that transgender identity and sexual orientation are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when clearly they are not.

00:10:49.000 He voted with the majority in that case.

00:10:51.000 The only time he ever votes With his supposed principles is when he's in the minority.

00:10:54.000 I've yet to see Justice Roberts side with a controversial majority decision.

00:10:58.000 It really does not happen where he's the swing vote.

00:11:00.000 The guiding light is he will always take the side of the left in order to create institutional stability.

00:11:06.000 But institutional stability inherently means cave to the left.

00:11:09.000 When four of the members of the court are on the left, and he votes with the left.

00:11:12.000 And we're gonna get to more of this in just a second.

00:11:14.000 He's just a terrible justice.

00:11:15.000 I mean, what a botchery by the Bush administration in picking him in the first place.

00:11:15.000 He truly is.

00:11:20.000 Okay, so Chief Justice John Roberts obviously writes idiotically in this case. 0.99

00:11:25.000 I mean, it really is incredible. 0.99

00:11:26.000 It really is incredible how dumb this particular decision is from Justice Roberts. 0.91

00:11:30.000 So as Dan McLaughlin properly writes in National Review, Chief Justice John Roberts' lack of courage is damaging the Supreme Court. 0.93

00:11:38.000 He says, there are times when it is hard to stand up for your principles, to stand against your own party, or both.

00:11:42.000 From judges, we are told, the important thing is to follow, not lead, to have the ascetic self-discipline to apply the constitution and laws as written, not to put your own policy preferences above the letter of the law.

00:11:51.000 The right ideas and the right priorities matter more than character.

00:11:53.000 A good brain beats a good heart.

00:11:55.000 The conservative legal establishment has long been particularly enamored of this ideal, the umpire calling balls and strikes, which is important, but this is not the first virtue.

00:12:03.000 An umpire who can be cowed by the crowd will not call the same strike zone for both teams.

00:12:07.000 And that is exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts did.

00:12:09.000 There were two decisions that came down yesterday.

00:12:11.000 One is in a case called June Medical, and the other...

00:12:15.000 is in a case called Celia Law.

00:12:16.000 The June medical case is the abortion case. 1.00

00:12:18.000 And again, this is unthinkably stupid, what he did here. 0.85

00:12:21.000 He voted the other way on the same case four years ago, and now he is saying that because this case was decided four years ago, it has become part and parcel of the American jurisprudence and cannot be overturned. 0.99

00:12:32.000 Now, the basic rule, by the way, on stare decisis is the longer it's been in place, the more you don't want to overturn it because there's so many institutions then built on the decision.

00:12:39.000 Now, that does not stop the court from stepping in and overturning hundreds of years of precedence in America when they have felt the necessity to do so.

00:12:45.000 I mean, you'll recall that just a few years ago, the Supreme Court decided on the basis of no history whatsoever that same-sex marriage was mandated by the Constitution, right?

00:12:52.000 I mean, overturning literally not just centuries of law, but millennia of Western canon.

00:12:57.000 You know, stare decisis only matters when the Supreme Court says it matters.

00:13:01.000 As Dan McLaughlin says, in June, Medical Services LLC versus Rousseau, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch would have upheld that Louisiana law.

00:13:10.000 Chief Justice Roberts sided with the court's four liberals, claiming his hands were tied by precedent.

00:13:14.000 In the 2016 case, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, the court ruled 5-3 against a Texas abortion law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

00:13:24.000 States routinely impose such requirements on the practice of medicine, especially invasive or surgical procedures.

00:13:29.000 As Justice Gorsuch observed in that case, the Louisiana law, or in this case, tracks long-standing state laws governing physicians who perform relatively low-risk procedures like colonoscopies, LASIK eye surgeries, and steroid injections at ambulatory surgical centers.

00:13:42.000 The court in both of these cases, the 2016 case on the Texas law and the case yesterday on Louisiana law ruled, quote, an unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right to an abortion.

00:13:58.000 But what the court defines is an unnecessary requirement would be uncontroversially legal for any other medical procedure under the sun.

00:14:05.000 And of course, there is no constitutional right to abortion.

00:14:07.000 It just doesn't exist.

00:14:08.000 Now normally, if you vote one case four years ago, one way, you don't switch and vote the other way in the exact same case four years later.

00:14:15.000 But Justice Roberts gave the liberals the deference they would not apply themselves.

00:14:20.000 Writing, I joined the dissent in Whole Women's Health and continue to believe the case was wrongly decided.

00:14:25.000 The question today is not whether Whole Women's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it.

00:14:29.000 The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.

00:14:36.000 Except for the fact that the Whole Women's Health decision overturned a prior decision that had already said the opposite.

00:14:43.000 The four liberals allowed a do-over in the Whole Woman's Health case. 0.80

00:14:46.000 Justice Alito pointed out that the Whole Woman's Health decision disregarded basic rules that apply in all other cases.

00:14:52.000 Stare decisis is supposed to promote stability in law by adhering to consistent and predictable rules, but the opinion striking down the Louisiana law didn't do any of that stuff.

00:15:00.000 Roberts didn't join the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Breyer, but by joining its outcome, he prevented the court's conservatives from doing anything to keep the court from constantly rewriting its own rules.

00:15:09.000 This is the point that is being made here.

00:15:11.000 I mean, I'm not kidding.

00:15:12.000 in a national review.

00:15:13.000 Abortion law is governed by a 1992 decision called Planned Parenthood versus Casey, one of the worst cases in Supreme Court history in which the court declared that people have a right to define the world and the universe for themselves.

00:15:24.000 I mean, I'm not kidding.

00:15:25.000 That's actually the language of the decision.

00:15:26.000 As Roberts noted, Casey asked whether an abortion law imposed an undue burden, but the court in Whole Woman's Health and the plurality today changed the rule to make it a balancing test that reviews the pros and cons of the law.

00:15:38.000 Roberts reiterated that Whole Woman's Health therefore departs from Casey and asks the court to apply a test they are not competent to administer.

00:15:44.000 This is again in Roberts' opinion.

00:15:46.000 In this context, courts applying a balancing test would be asked, in essence, to weigh the state's interests in protecting the potentiality of human life and the health of the woman on one hand, against the woman's liberty interest in defining her own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life on the other.

00:16:00.000 That quote is from Planned Parenthood versus Casey. 0.98

00:16:03.000 That's what I was referring to, which is just idiotic. 0.94

00:16:05.000 There's no plausible sense in which anyone, let alone this court, could objectively assign weight to such imponderable values and no meaningful way to compare them, if there were. 0.97

00:16:13.000 Attempting to do so would be like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy.

00:16:18.000 That's what Justice Antonin Scalia said in Planned Parenthood versus Casey.

00:16:22.000 Pretending we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges.

00:16:27.000 We have explained the traditional rule that state and federal legislatures have wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty is consistent with Casey, right?

00:16:36.000 That last line is pretty poignant.

00:16:38.000 Okay, but Roberts joined the majority opinion.

00:16:41.000 He joined the majority opinion, which is insane.

00:16:44.000 So he basically demolished the majority opinion and then he joined the majority opinion.

00:16:48.000 Which is crazy, which is crazy towns.

00:16:50.000 Okay, that is one thing that Robert said yesterday.

00:16:52.000 He ruled in a second case in which he saved the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

00:16:55.000 So for those who don't know, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a piece of government machinery created independent of the executive branch of the government.

00:17:02.000 The head of the CFPB could not be fired.

00:17:04.000 Their basic idea, they were empowered with overwhelming powers, incredible powers.

00:17:07.000 I've talked about it on the program before.

00:17:09.000 Incredible powers to oversee business in the United States and find businesses and investigate businesses.

00:17:14.000 And the head of it was not answerable to the executive branch.

00:17:17.000 Which means that it violates the separation of powers, because you either work for the legislature, or you work for the executive, or you work for the judiciary.

00:17:23.000 There is no unaccountable fourth branch of government.

00:17:26.000 The CFPB set up the head of the CFPB so the person could not be fired.

00:17:29.000 Okay, so, this comes up before the court, and what does the court do?

00:17:35.000 They uphold the presence of the CFPB by basically saying, okay, you know what, we understand that the head can't be fired, but just because the head can't be fired doesn't mean that we can't make him fireable by the president, so we're just gonna rewrite the law wholesale.

00:17:46.000 So basically the same thing that Roberts did in Obamacare, where he declared that a fee was actually a tax.

00:17:54.000 He just rewrote the law in order to save the law.

00:17:56.000 So he did the exact same thing yesterday, joining a 5-4 majority.

00:18:00.000 As Dan McLaughlin says, in the second case, Celia Law versus Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Chief Justice wrote the court's opinion, declaring that Congress in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act had violated the separation of powers by placing the CFPB's head beyond the reach of presidents to remove at will.

00:18:14.000 It's an epic embarrassment for Elizabeth Warren, who designed the CFPB, and for President Obama.

00:18:18.000 But Roberts pulled up short of concluding that an agency created in violation of the Constitution lacked the power to compel the citizenry, so they could go ahead and continue operating as normal.

00:18:27.000 We're just going to make the person fireable by the President.

00:18:30.000 If Congress passes an unconstitutional statute, generally, you strike it down unless there's a severability provision, right?

00:18:35.000 Severability provision is a provision in the law that says, you can carve off this portion of the law and you can declare it invalid, and if you do that, then here's our backup plan.

00:18:42.000 Congress didn't do any of that.

00:18:43.000 So Roberts just did it for them.

00:18:45.000 Roberts just said, okay, fine.

00:18:46.000 You know what?

00:18:47.000 We're just gonna make this person fireable by the president, and then we'll just preserve the law.

00:18:51.000 So Roberts is just doing the work of the left at this point.

00:18:56.000 Now Dan McLaughlin is more charitable.

00:18:58.000 He says it's a mistake to compare Roberts to past Republican appointees because unlike William Brennan or John Paul Stevens or Souter or Earl Warren Burger or O'Connor, he actually is good at his job, he's just weak.

00:19:10.000 But I don't actually buy that.

00:19:12.000 Week is still left, okay?

00:19:15.000 If you vote with the left, you're with the left, okay?

00:19:17.000 There is no kind of halfway point here.

00:19:20.000 So once again, what this demonstrates is that if you are relying on the Republican Party to save you by appointing Supreme Court justices who are on the right, Supreme Court justices can help a little bit, but can they overwhelmingly preserve your rights?

00:19:32.000 No.

00:19:33.000 And Republicans are simply not willing to appoint the kind of people who will preserve your rights by asking them the honest and open questions they need to be asked before they are appointed to the Supreme Court.

00:19:40.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second.

00:19:43.000 First, Let's talk about the fact that the Second Amendment, pretty important right now, so we've got an entire class of people in the United States who have decided that it's time to defund the police, and then they've also decided that it's time for you not to have a gun, only the police should have guns.

00:19:55.000 Well, that seems like a very, very terrible idea.

00:19:57.000 There's a reason that shootings are spiking in major cities around the United States, and that's a pretty damned good reason for you to be armed.

00:20:03.000 You know who believes in that?

00:20:03.000 Bravo Company USA.

00:20:05.000 Bravo Company Manufacturing builds a professional-grade product built to combat standards.

00:20:09.000 That's because BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless if they're a private citizen or a professional.

00:20:16.000 The people of BCM assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.

00:20:24.000 And with that in mind, every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans.

00:20:29.000 The people at BCM feel it is their moral responsibility as Americans to provide the tools that will not fail the end-user when it's not just a paper target, but somebody coming to do them harm.

00:20:38.000 BCM also knows that making reliable, life-saving tools is only half the story.

00:20:41.000 The company also works with leading instructors of marksmanship from top levels of America's Special Ops Forces, from Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance to U.S.

00:20:48.000 Army Special Operation Forces, connecting them with other Americans.

00:20:52.000 These top instructors will teach you the skills necessary to defend yourself, your family, or others.

00:20:56.000 If you're trying to protect yourself, having a gun that works is definitely a really important, important thing protecting your rights.

00:21:02.000 Learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing today.

00:21:04.000 Head on over to my friends at BravoCompanyMFG.com.

00:21:06.000 You can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.

00:21:09.000 That is BravoCompanyMFG.com.

00:21:12.000 And if you want to see even more about them, check them out at YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.

00:21:16.000 Macho dudes standing up for American rights.

00:21:18.000 Go check them out.

00:21:18.000 Bravo Company USA.

00:21:20.000 Go check them out.

00:21:21.000 Right now.

00:21:22.000 BravoCompanyMFG.com.

00:21:24.000 Okay, so, bottom line is, with Justice Roberts, like so much of the rest of the court, if you're unwilling to stand up for the right principles, then those principles will be pulled away right in front of you.

00:21:35.000 And it does underscore.

00:21:36.000 There's something I talk about.

00:21:37.000 I have a brand new book coming out called How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.

00:21:40.000 And I talk about a couple of different things in the book.

00:21:42.000 I talk about our philosophy of rights.

00:21:44.000 The philosophy that springs from the Declaration of Independence and is encoded in the Constitution.

00:21:48.000 I talk about that, but I say it's not enough to have a philosophy of rights because the fact is you can't rely on legality to save you.

00:21:55.000 It's important that a country have a culture of rights.

00:21:58.000 What I mean by that is that we all in our daily lives rely on each other to respect our rights to do things, right?

00:22:05.000 We have to have enough.

00:22:07.000 We have to have enough respect for our neighbors that we allow our neighbors to do things that are within their rights, even if we disagree with them.

00:22:12.000 And that is something that is falling away incredibly quickly in the United States.

00:22:16.000 And here's the thing.

00:22:17.000 The Supreme Court and the law tend to follow the culture.

00:22:19.000 So, if the culture becomes incredibly censorious, if the culture decides that certain types of speech are no longer allowed, it is only a matter of time before there are justices on the Supreme Court appointed presumably by a Democrat or a weak-kneed Republican.

00:22:31.000 And those justices start maintaining that, for example, hate speech regulations don't violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

00:22:38.000 It's only a matter of time until that happens.

00:22:40.000 And it's going to be called wild and crazy to say such things, but the reality is we've had such laws promulgated in states across the United States on college campuses.

00:22:49.000 There are all sorts of regulations on college campuses that patently offend the First Amendment and that have been at the very least sort of overlooked by court systems.

00:22:58.000 In foreign countries like the UK or Canada, there are hate speech regulations on the books.

00:23:02.000 And you are seeing increasingly a push for such sort of regulations in the United States.

00:23:06.000 Now that will follow a cultural push to cast out everybody who disagrees with you.

00:23:12.000 Now, the entire model of free speech, of liberal free speech, I mean classical liberal free speech, is the idea that a marketplace of ideas is a good thing.

00:23:20.000 That typically, you want people to be able to speak their minds even if what they are saying offends you, even if what they are saying is wrong or incorrect.

00:23:26.000 Better too much speech than too little speech.

00:23:28.000 That is the culture of rights I'm talking about.

00:23:30.000 The recognition, the ACLU's old recognition, that I hate what you're saying, but I will fight and die for your right to say it.

00:23:37.000 Is there anybody who believes that members of the Democratic Party would do that today?

00:23:40.000 Is there anybody who believes that members of today's culture, today's censorious culture, would fight and die for the right of somebody else to say something with which they disagree?

00:23:47.000 More likely, they would kill somebody who is disagreeing, at least figuratively speaking.

00:23:53.000 At least they would excise them from the American body politic. 0.82

00:23:56.000 The culture of rights is falling away.

00:23:58.000 And it's falling away in a variety of ways.

00:23:59.000 It's falling away particularly when it comes to the consumption of products.

00:24:02.000 It's really interesting to see which avenues the fight against a culture of free speech rights is moving.

00:24:08.000 So, they're going at the most vulnerable targets.

00:24:11.000 The hard left that is seeking to restrict the ability to perform free speech in America is going after the most vulnerable targets.

00:24:16.000 You wonder why they go after college campuses.

00:24:18.000 Where, by the way, there is less offensive speech on college campuses than anywhere else in American life, at least if you're on the American left.

00:24:23.000 If you're on the American left, These are safe spaces for you.

00:24:26.000 The idea that you're experiencing massive, overwhelming discrimination, racism, brutal right-wing bigotry on college campuses is insane.

00:24:33.000 But those are always ground zero for these sorts of controversies.

00:24:35.000 Why?

00:24:36.000 Because you push where there's mush, in the words of Stalin, right?

00:24:38.000 You always make sure that you're going to find the people who are most likely to cave to you, and that's the people you target.

00:24:43.000 So, where does this manifest first?

00:24:45.000 It manifests first on college campuses.

00:24:47.000 Where hate speech regulations are promulgated and where you see college administrators bowing to the whims of a mob and declaring that people who say perfectly inoffensive things ought to be cast out of their jobs.

00:24:56.000 This is how you get Brett Weinstein getting tossed out of his job over at Evergreen State College for the great crime of saying, I'm not going to stop teaching today just because of the color of my skin.

00:25:03.000 That's literally a thing that happened at Evergreen State College.

00:25:05.000 So it starts at college campuses.

00:25:07.000 It then moves into the media because all of these college graduates then go work at the New York Times.

00:25:11.000 And then they get the op-ed editor of the New York Times thrown out of his job for the grave sin of running an editorial from a sitting United States senator suggesting that perhaps federal troops might have to be used if ongoing rights in American cities are not quelled, which is a majority proposition in the United States.

00:25:26.000 But the idea is that's threatening and it's bad.

00:25:29.000 So all of the, and the media, because the media are left and apologetic about America's culture of rights, because America's culture of rights, according to the American left, rests on a fundamental basis of bigotry and evil.

00:25:39.000 Because of all of that, that culture of rights has to be done away with.

00:25:42.000 The only way we can achieve true equality is by quashing the culture of rights and replacing it with a culture of mandatory tolerance and acceptance of one type of point of view.

00:25:51.000 A repressive tolerance, as Herbert Marcuse suggested in the 1960s.

00:25:54.000 A tolerance of only certain points of view that forward the left-wing perspective on what utopia should look like.

00:26:00.000 So it starts on college campuses, and then it moves over to the media.

00:26:02.000 And now it's moving into the corporate world.

00:26:04.000 I'm gonna explain that in just one second.

00:26:06.000 First, let us talk about the simple fact that if you run a business, if you own a business, you gotta know your numbers.

00:26:12.000 I mean, right now, with the economy as volatile as it is with the economy all over the place, it is incredibly important that you know in granular detail every aspect of your business.

00:26:21.000 You gotta be on top of your data.

00:26:22.000 What do you need to make that happen?

00:26:23.000 An integrated business solution.

00:26:25.000 That integrated business solution, NetSuite by Oracle.

00:26:27.000 It's the world's number one cloud business system.

00:26:29.000 Finance, HR, inventory, e-commerce, everything you need, all in one place, so you save time, you save money, you save headaches.

00:26:35.000 Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite will give you visibility and control, so you can manage every penny with precision.

00:26:41.000 Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence.

00:26:44.000 NetSuite surveyed hundreds of business leaders and assembled a playbook of the top strategies they are using as America reopens for business.

00:26:51.000 Receive your free guide, seven actions businesses need to take right now.

00:26:54.000 Schedule your free product tour at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.

00:26:57.000 Again, that's netsuite.com slash Shapiro.

00:26:59.000 Get that free guide.

00:27:00.000 Schedule your free product tour right now at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.

00:27:03.000 N-E-T-S-U-I-T-E dot com slash Shapiro.

00:27:06.000 Integrate all that business data.

00:27:07.000 Make sure that you're on top of everything you need to know about your business to keep it running and functioning at full force.

00:27:12.000 Netsuite.com slash Shapiro for that free guide and the free product tour right now.

00:27:17.000 So, the left's push against our cultural rights, not just the push against legal rights, which will come later, the push against the culture of rights, turning institutions into batons to wield against political opponents, and casting out political opponents who are well within their rights in speaking out.

00:27:33.000 Right, that culture is important.

00:27:35.000 Culture matters.

00:27:36.000 Okay, the idea that the only things that matter... You hear this from the left very often.

00:27:39.000 Why are you conservatives complaining so much about private institutions doing what they're doing?

00:27:43.000 Okay, number one, they have a right to do it, and number two, they could be very wrong, and it can be very dangerous when all the institutions start to mirror an anti-freedom point of view.

00:27:50.000 That is a dangerous thing.

00:27:52.000 It is a bad thing.

00:27:53.000 It doesn't mean that these institutions should be regulated by the government.

00:27:55.000 That's an imposition on freedom, too.

00:27:57.000 But you can also be contributing to the decline of a certain level of understanding that there will be differing points of view in American public life, and that's horrible for the culture.

00:28:07.000 And the culture absolutely matters.

00:28:09.000 The same left that claims that the right can't care about the culture cares almost nothing about the law and everything about the culture.

00:28:14.000 They spend all day trying to pervert the instruments of culture to their political point of view.

00:28:19.000 It's why the left is so focused on painting Black Lives Matter on the side of the NBA basketball court.

00:28:25.000 Because the culture matters, right?

00:28:26.000 They're attempting to change hearts and minds on a particular issue.

00:28:29.000 Well, when you have entire systems in America, institutions in America, that are now dedicated to the proposition that certain types of speech should not be allowed, well, that's going to have a pretty predictable impact on how Americans see the institution of free speech on a legal level, and also just on a general level.

00:28:43.000 Because if you can't tolerate your neighbor saying something you disagree with, we can't be friends anymore.

00:28:46.000 This is what the left is pushing, by the way.

00:28:48.000 You can't speak to your parents unless they mouth the words, Black Lives Matter, with just the precise amount of authenticity.

00:28:55.000 Well then, that's a culture war that actually has dramatic impact for how people live.

00:28:59.000 It's not just the law, it's the culture that matters in the United States.

00:29:02.000 I mean, this is why I talk about, again, three things in America that you actually need to be unified and how to destroy America in three easy steps.

00:29:07.000 Philosophy, and history, a shared history, and a shared culture.

00:29:11.000 And all three are under attack right now.

00:29:13.000 The philosophy is under attack.

00:29:15.000 Because the idea is the Declaration is bad, and the Constitution is bad, and founded in racism, steeped in evil.

00:29:20.000 The culture is bad, because again, the culture is drawn from a well of quote-unquote white supremacy.

00:29:26.000 And the history is bad because the history is replete with discrimination and bias and bigotry and evil, right?

00:29:30.000 That is the case of the left.

00:29:32.000 And that results in an anti-freedom culture.

00:29:34.000 That is what the left is pushing right now, all in the name of tolerance and acceptance.

00:29:39.000 That is what the left is pushing very hard right now.

00:29:42.000 And so they started off, as I've said, they started off on college campuses.

00:29:45.000 Pushing the administrations on college campuses to shut down people's ability to speak freely, and declaring that we'd have free speech zones, and that we would ensure that everybody was ensured their safe space where they were free from microaggressions, and we'll teach all the white students about the fact that they're not allowed to say things like, I am colorblind, because that in and of itself is racist.

00:30:02.000 You're not allowed to ask where somebody is from because that could be microaggressive.

00:30:05.000 All that started on college campuses.

00:30:07.000 Then it moved into the halls of the media because the media is a very left institution and the heads of the media are just ashamed enough of America.

00:30:15.000 They're more ashamed of America and America's history and America's philosophy.

00:30:19.000 They're more ashamed of that than they are attached to the notion of everybody should be speaking freely and more speech is better speech.

00:30:26.000 They're more attached to certain principles than other principles.

00:30:28.000 And now it has moved on to corporate America.

00:30:30.000 And the reason it's moved on to corporate America is because, again, corporate America is a soft target.

00:30:35.000 You're running a corporation.

00:30:36.000 The corporation has one goal, to sell Coke.

00:30:39.000 You're the head of the Coca-Cola Corporation.

00:30:41.000 All you do all day is figure out how to sell Coke to people.

00:30:44.000 And normally you just advertise where the people are.

00:30:48.000 There are a bunch of different platforms.

00:30:50.000 There are a bunch of different places that you can advertise.

00:30:52.000 And frankly, you don't really care, right?

00:30:54.000 You're putting up billboards.

00:30:55.000 You just want to see what the ROI is.

00:30:57.000 What is the return on investment?

00:30:58.000 Well, let's say that you're getting a pretty solid return on investment by advertising, for example, on Facebook.

00:31:03.000 And then let's say that there are a loud coterie of people who say, we are going to launch a campaign against you, Coca-Cola, for the crime of, for the great evil of having advertised on Facebook.

00:31:15.000 And we're going to launch a boycott against Coca-Cola now.

00:31:18.000 You have two choices.

00:31:19.000 One is you can say, OK, go for it.

00:31:21.000 Enjoy.

00:31:22.000 Because it turns out the benefit we get from advertising on Facebook outweighs the downside of you guys being angry at us for advertising on Facebook.

00:31:29.000 Now, in reality, that is the reality.

00:31:31.000 The reality is boycotts barely ever, virtually never work.

00:31:34.000 Boycotts are usually ineffective.

00:31:37.000 But, right now, the people at Coca-Cola are thinking, okay, well we have a second front battle.

00:31:42.000 It is not merely a calculation of, do we get more out of advertising on Facebook than we get a downside from people yelling at us.

00:31:50.000 It is, we have a bunch of staffers, and our staffers are yelling at us internally.

00:31:53.000 And our staffers are telling us that we're racist if we don't take our stuff down from Facebook.

00:31:56.000 Now, we haven't advertised on anything racist. 0.99

00:31:59.000 We have not gone out and advertised in Louis Farrakhan's Trumpet Call or whatever the hell his stupid newspaper is. 0.98

00:32:04.000 We've not advertised with David Duke. 0.99

00:32:05.000 We're advertising on a social media platform with billions of people on it.

00:32:08.000 That's literally all we're doing, but it doesn't matter.

00:32:10.000 Because the idea is, I can find other alternative ways of advertising that appeal to the woke base inside our own company, and don't offend the media, and don't give us $10 million with bad media coverage.

00:32:22.000 It makes my job easier, makes my days easier.

00:32:24.000 All I have to do is click this button.

00:32:26.000 If I click this button right here, and I temporarily suspend ads from Facebook, how much coke are we really selling off of Facebook anyway?

00:32:32.000 Is it worth the hassle?

00:32:33.000 Maybe we can find other ways of doing this.

00:32:35.000 Maybe we can find other ways of doing this that adhere to the anti-rights culture that is being promulgated by the left.

00:32:41.000 Because remember, when people advertise on Facebook, this is actually what's happening right now.

00:32:44.000 When people advertise on Facebook, or Twitter, or any of the other social media platforms, they are not endorsing the messages that are there. 0.88

00:32:52.000 This is incredibly silly.

00:32:53.000 Everybody knows this, by the way. 0.83

00:32:54.000 When people advertise on Fox News, they're not endorsing everything on Fox News any more than if they advertise on MSNBC, they're endorsing everything on MSNBC.

00:33:02.000 When products advertise themselves, typically they're advertising because they wish to reach the audience, not because they subsidized Tucker Carlson's script that day.

00:33:11.000 None of them are privy to Tucker Carlson's script that day.

00:33:14.000 What the left is attempting to do right now is basically remove all profit incentive for corporations to back free speech.

00:33:21.000 And therefore to remove the profit incentive for an entire free speech industry that exists to provide opposing points of view.

00:33:28.000 And then the only points of view that will be left are the points of view that preceded this brand new era of internet freedom.

00:33:34.000 Because what the internet really did is it decentralized the power mechanisms for dissemination of information.

00:33:38.000 That's what the internet did.

00:33:39.000 And Matt Drudge was very instrumental in this.

00:33:41.000 When Matt Drudge created Drudge Report, and suddenly people were flocking to Drudge Report to get reporting from an institution outside the mainstream media, it broke the media's monopoly on this.

00:33:50.000 So many members of the media, people at the New York Times, will cheer on the demonetization of free speech content over on Facebook.

00:33:58.000 They will cheer on Facebook as Facebook restricts material or his Twitter restricts material.

00:34:03.000 Facebook's been better than the others, by the way.

00:34:04.000 Facebook's been way better than the others because at least Zuckerberg has a baseline adherence to the levels of belief in free speech, according to his own speeches at Georgetown.

00:34:10.000 But there are lots of other places that are saying, okay, well, we'll just go.

00:34:14.000 Listen, we can still put out the New York Times.

00:34:16.000 Basically, here's what happened.

00:34:17.000 The New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, all the mainstream media outlets used to have a monopoly.

00:34:23.000 The monopoly was broken by the internet.

00:34:24.000 And advertisers recognized that there were big audiences that cropped up for these alternative mechanisms.

00:34:29.000 And so they started advertising on those mechanisms.

00:34:31.000 And so the media, the old world media, the mainstream media, in combination with a censorious left, decided they were going to re-establish the monopoly by basically taking all these social media mechanisms and having those social media mechanisms become merely loudspeakers for the mainstream media while banning everybody else.

00:34:49.000 That's the actual goal here.

00:34:50.000 And all they have to do is intimidate the corporations into stopping their advertisements on these social media platforms.

00:34:55.000 That's all they have to do.

00:34:56.000 Remove the profit margin for all of these smaller publishers.

00:34:59.000 All they have to do is make sure that views they don't like are taken out of the realm of commerce.

00:35:05.000 And corporations think to themselves, okay, do I really want this fight?

00:35:09.000 If you're a corporate middle manager in marketing, do you really want to spend your day being inundated with emails from supposedly angry people who are on a listserv?

00:35:16.000 Is that something that you want to do?

00:35:18.000 Do you want to find yourself cancelled tomorrow?

00:35:20.000 Because remember, all of these corporations are made up of individuals.

00:35:23.000 And you're the middle manager who's approving the Facebook ad buy.

00:35:25.000 And suddenly, somebody is resurfacing a tweet that you wrote 25 years ago.

00:35:30.000 Or on Facebook, some post on social media, your high school yearbook is coming out.

00:35:33.000 You don't want to be on the front lines of that thing.

00:35:35.000 You'd prefer to have an easy life where you can be left alone.

00:35:37.000 The left knows this, and so the left is attacking the culture of rights by going after the corporations.

00:35:41.000 So it went colleges, then it went media, and now it's going corporations.

00:35:45.000 And so what this means is that you are seeing, for example, Starbucks being the latest company to posit advertising across social media platforms, across all of them.

00:35:53.000 Coke said it would pause advertising on all social media platforms globally.

00:35:57.000 Unilever is halting advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter in the United States through December 31st.

00:36:03.000 According to Starbucks, we believe in bringing communities together, both in person and online, and we stand against hate speech.

00:36:08.000 Now, nobody suggested that Starbucks stood in favor of hate speech.

00:36:11.000 But who the hell is Starbucks to determine what a social media platform should be?

00:36:16.000 They're not advertising on any of the hate speech stuff.

00:36:19.000 And if they found out they were, they would pull their advertising from that stuff.

00:36:21.000 But instead of saying, okay, YouTube or Facebook, you know, there's some bad stuff there and we don't want to be associated with that bad stuff.

00:36:27.000 They say, we're just not going to be involved in free speech at all.

00:36:30.000 And until Facebook only has content that we feel comfortable advertising on, Then we are not going to be on Facebook.

00:36:37.000 In other words, we, who are run by the woke, so the woke now run the Outlook on Rights at the corporations, and then the Outlook on Rights at the corporations dictates their spending, which dictates their attempting, dictates the rules at these social media companies.

00:36:50.000 That is the chain of logic here, and it's really, really dangerous.

00:36:53.000 The company said, we believe in bringing communities online.

00:36:55.000 We stand against hate speech.

00:36:56.000 We believe more must be done to create welcoming and inclusive online communities.

00:36:59.000 We believe both business leaders and policymakers need to come together to effect real change.

00:37:04.000 Okay, so the reason that all of these places are doing this, and again, it is Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, it's basically all of them, they said they're not going to include YouTube.

00:37:12.000 Starbucks.

00:37:13.000 Why aren't they going to include YouTube?

00:37:14.000 The reason they're not going to include YouTube is because they decided it's too lucrative to advertise on YouTube.

00:37:18.000 That's the reality, right?

00:37:19.000 Starbucks decided that, sure, we're against all this hate speech stuff, and yeah, but, and sure, there's a lot of bad videos on YouTube, but, you know what, I mean, really, we still make more money on YouTube, so we're just gonna, we're gonna stick with this whole YouTube thing.

00:37:30.000 Starbucks said, though, is pausing advertising.

00:37:32.000 It isn't joining the Stop Hate for Profit boycott campaign, which kicked off earlier this month.

00:37:36.000 After a group of organizations called on Facebook advertisers to pause their ad spend during July, more than 100 marketers, including Levi's Patagonia, REI, Lending Club, and North Face have announced their intentions to join.

00:37:46.000 According to a running list from Sleeping Giants, which is one of the worst groups on the internet, Sleeping Giants is basically just a boycott group directed against the right.

00:37:53.000 And it's not just the radical right.

00:37:54.000 It's like everybody on the right.

00:37:55.000 If you are to the right of Karl Marx, sleeping giants would love to see you demonetized, right?

00:37:59.000 That is their goal.

00:38:00.000 The group of organizations includes Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, Sleeping Giants, Color of Change, which is like almost a radical socialist group, Free Press, and Common Sense.

00:38:11.000 Again, the idea here is they're going to create a lot of ad press for corporations.

00:38:14.000 So corporations cave, and then social media companies cave.

00:38:17.000 And then when social media companies cave, and they start banning people left and right in order to get the money back, then what happens is when you have institutional capture, when corporations are captured by the woke left, The impact is going to be social media companies end up being captured by the woke left.

00:38:31.000 When the social media companies are captured by the woke left, then presumably, there will be basically no method for dissemination of information that counters the prevailing left-wing narrative in the culture.

00:38:41.000 This is dangerous stuff.

00:38:43.000 It is bad for the country.

00:38:44.000 And it leads, by the way, to exactly the silos and echo chambers the left is constantly whining about.

00:38:48.000 It's constantly saying, well, you know, there's Daily Wire, and that's mostly right-wing people who watch that.

00:38:52.000 I mean, that's a silo.

00:38:53.000 It's a silo of information.

00:38:54.000 They don't believe what we believe.

00:38:55.000 Who do you think created those silos?

00:38:57.000 Who do you think is exacerbating those silos?

00:38:59.000 And I'm perfectly willing, on my Sunday special, to have on anybody from the left.

00:39:03.000 The number of people on the left who have invited me on their podcast for a nice, genuine conversation can be numbered on one hand.

00:39:08.000 They literally will not do it.

00:39:09.000 And they will not do it because they're afraid of blowback from their own community.

00:39:13.000 I've had conversations with the biggest podcasters on the left.

00:39:16.000 Literally the biggest.

00:39:17.000 And I've said, why don't we have a crossover podcast?

00:39:19.000 Nope, can't do it.

00:39:20.000 Our people would kill us.

00:39:22.000 Right?

00:39:22.000 This is the culture of rights that is being destroyed right now.

00:39:25.000 And it is being destroyed on the basis of a lie.

00:39:27.000 And that lie is that rights are an outgrowth of evil.

00:39:29.000 Rights are an outgrowth of white supremacy. 0.51

00:39:31.000 We're going to get to that argument, which is now being made by none other than Elizabeth Warren, possible VP pick for Joe Biden.

00:39:38.000 We'll get to that in a second.

00:39:39.000 First, what do millions of Americans and three former U.S.

00:39:42.000 presidents have in common?

00:39:43.000 They all agree that Boleyn brand sheets are the softest, most comfortable, pure organic cotton sheets on earth.

00:39:47.000 By the way, I agree also.

00:39:48.000 These sheets are unbelievable.

00:39:50.000 They are so comfortable, you're never going to be able to sleep on other sheets again.

00:39:52.000 I mean, that's how good they are. 0.91

00:39:54.000 Yeah, they are not going to cost you $20 at the local retail outlet store, because the stuff you get for $20 at the local retail outlet store sucks. 0.67

00:40:02.000 It's a tarp, okay?

00:40:02.000 The stuff that you're getting from Bowling Branch is the highest quality.

00:40:06.000 It's rain-fed, pesticide-free.

00:40:06.000 It's amazing.

00:40:08.000 The cotton carries the highest organic certification, which is why it's so soft.

00:40:12.000 Because they work with family-owned mills all over the world to expertly weave every set of Boleyn brand sheets, with the highest level of craftsmanship, it is quality you can feel the moment you open the box.

00:40:21.000 And you're spending hours every day on those sheets, and they are just, you want them to be great.

00:40:24.000 Boleyn brand sheets, again, they're so good, I literally cannot sleep on non-Boleyn brand sheets.

00:40:28.000 That's how good they are.

00:40:29.000 Bull and Branch sheets start at just $160.

00:40:31.000 Plus, they are $1,000 quality for a fraction of the price.

00:40:34.000 I mean, they really are.

00:40:34.000 You can sleep on them for a month risk-free, so if you don't even like them, you can send them back.

00:40:37.000 Right now, you get $50 off any sheet set at bullandbranch.com with promo code BENSHAPIRO.

00:40:42.000 It's spelled B-O-L-L and branch.com.

00:40:45.000 Promo code BENSHAPIRO for $50 off.

00:40:47.000 Bullandbranch.com.

00:40:48.000 Promo code BENSHAPIRO.

00:40:49.000 Restrictions may apply.

00:40:50.000 See bullandbranch.com for details.

00:40:52.000 Go check them out.

00:40:54.000 Right now.

00:40:54.000 Okay, we're gonna get to the censorious culture and the outcome of this and where it is coming from, right?

00:41:00.000 What is the new philosophy that is backing the culture of censorship that is now being caved into by corporations?

00:41:05.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:41:07.000 First, if you're not already a DailyWire member, you should consider getting a reader's pass to dailywire.com.

00:41:11.000 It is a great value for only three bucks a month.

00:41:12.000 When you sign up, you get that first month for only 99 cents.

00:41:15.000 You also get access to our mobile app, articles ad free, access to exclusive editorials, like a really important one I've got out right now, Over at DailyWire, 11 leftist myths about American history.

00:41:24.000 You can go check that out, but only if you're a subscriber.

00:41:27.000 If you haven't checked out the Reader's Pass already, head on over to dailywire.com.

00:41:29.000 Sign up for just a dollar.

00:41:31.000 And again, make sure that you go pick up a copy of the book that I've been talking about.

00:41:33.000 It's not coming out.

00:41:35.000 Till July 21st.

00:41:36.000 So you still have a little bit of time to pre-order, but it is flying.

00:41:39.000 I mean, it is flying.

00:41:40.000 I mean, let's just say that this book is going to sell.

00:41:42.000 It's going to sell out very, very quickly.

00:41:44.000 Go check out dailywire.com slash Ben to pre-order my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, which is the topic of the day.

00:41:52.000 I mean, that is what is happening.

00:41:53.000 Go check it out right now.

00:41:54.000 Dailywire.com slash Ben.

00:41:55.000 Ben, you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:41:58.000 So as I say, the so-called free speech platforms are now banning all outlandish speech, all outlying speech. 1.00

00:42:12.000 Reddit is going to ban the Donald thread, which is one of the bigger threads on Reddit.

00:42:16.000 It really is a huge thread on Reddit.

00:42:17.000 And then, just to make it fair, they're also banning Chapo Trap House.

00:42:20.000 Which is the socialist kind of mud bros over there. 1.00

00:42:23.000 I mean, they're really, they get in the mud and they're really gross and they're really ugly. 0.96

00:42:26.000 But, you know, they have a right to free speech too.

00:42:28.000 Something they would never say about me.

00:42:29.000 But, Chapo Trap House has a right to basically say what they want.

00:42:32.000 But apparently, their threat has been shut down too.

00:42:34.000 They shut down 2,000 communities today after updating their content policy to more explicitly ban hate speech.

00:42:40.000 The policy update came three weeks after Black Lives Matter protests led several popular Reddit forums to go dark temporarily in protest of what they called the company's lax policies around hosting and promoting racist content.

00:42:50.000 So now Reddit has decided that they are going to continue to crack down on the ability of others to speak.

00:42:55.000 I mean, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman said, quote, I have to admit, I've struggled about balancing my values as an American and around free speech and free expression with my values and the company's values around common human decency.

00:43:06.000 So this is where the rubber meets the road.

00:43:09.000 Here's the reality.

00:43:11.000 There is an Overton window, right?

00:43:12.000 These corporations are not the government.

00:43:14.000 They are allowed to have certain limits as to what they will allow.

00:43:17.000 But if your belief in common decency is basically you just agree with the policy preferences of the left, if common decency means you agree with the left, and that is what is coming into conflict with free speech and free expression, then free speech and free expression are no longer existent.

00:43:32.000 Again, the rule should be, unless it is something that violates... I mean, if I were running a corporation here, like a free speech corporation, not an ideologically driven one that is purely mine, like Daily Wire.

00:43:42.000 If I were running a platform like Reddit, my rule would be, unless you are violative of law, unless you are violative of open, straight abuse, Then you get to stay on.

00:43:55.000 And you can say ugly things, you can say terrible things.

00:43:56.000 Because guess what?

00:43:58.000 That is the world we live in.

00:43:59.000 And you have to trust at some point that people are going to rise above that, even if they see that content.

00:44:03.000 There's also this basic notion out there that if you ever see a bad piece of content on the internet, you are forever scarred. 0.97

00:44:07.000 It's absolute crap, okay? 0.78

00:44:08.000 I've seen more bad content about me and my family on the internet than probably any living human being. 0.98

00:44:13.000 And I can promise you, you're not permanently scarred by this stuff.

00:44:16.000 You're fine.

00:44:16.000 You're going to be okay.

00:44:18.000 Generally speaking, you will be okay.

00:44:19.000 Speaking as somebody who, again, has received probably more hatred online than nearly any other living human being on planet Earth.

00:44:25.000 But that statement says it all.

00:44:27.000 So the question, of course, is how do you define your common human decency?

00:44:31.000 And for the left, common human decency means agree with us.

00:44:33.000 So if it's agree with us and we have to balance agree with us and free speech, agree with us inherently says no free speech.

00:44:41.000 Agree with us and you must agree with us is exactly the repressive tolerance.

00:44:44.000 I've mentioned it earlier on the show.

00:44:47.000 philosophy professor from the so-called Frankfurt School of Philosophy, sort of a Marxist school of belief named Herbert Marcuse, who's most famous for coining the phrase, make love, not war, back in the 1960s.

00:44:57.000 But he was also very famous for an essay that he wrote called Repressive Tolerance, in which he suggested that true tolerance can only be achieved by preventing the full flowering of rights.

00:45:05.000 That if there are too many rights, all that means that you're reinforcing hierarchies of power, because all you're doing is allowing people who are bad to speak.

00:45:12.000 Those people who are bad are in charge of the system, and therefore you have to stop them from speaking in order that the system can be overturned.

00:45:18.000 So you actually need is repressive tolerance, that is to say, tolerance of opinions from the left, but no tolerance of opinions from the right.

00:45:24.000 And this is what's happening on social media platforms right now.

00:45:26.000 And they're starting with people who are, who are by all rules bad.

00:45:31.000 They're starting with people at YouTube, by the way.

00:45:34.000 They just banned, for example, Richard Spencer. 0.99

00:45:36.000 They're starting with people who everybody agrees are garbage. 0.88

00:45:39.000 And then they're moving very quickly into the realm of people who are edgy, but not Richard Spencer. 0.98

00:45:46.000 And that is where they are moving.

00:45:48.000 So Reddit's new policy begins with the first rule that requires users to consider the human.

00:45:51.000 It says, remember the human.

00:45:53.000 Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people.

00:45:58.000 Now, again, that is so vague, that is virtually meaningless, except it just means we now have an excuse to ban anyone we want.

00:46:03.000 Because, what does it mean?

00:46:04.000 They don't mean that you're going to say something overtly racist about black Americans, for example.

00:46:08.000 Which, again, I understand that being banned.

00:46:10.000 What they mean is that if you say anything, like, there's a person who's just banned on Twitter for saying men are not women.

00:46:16.000 That's the second person I know who's been banned for saying men are not women.

00:46:18.000 Well, I hate to break it to you, but men are not women. 1.00

00:46:20.000 Is that attacking a marginalized or vulnerable group of people saying men are not women?

00:46:26.000 The vagueness of the policy is where the death of free speech lies.

00:46:29.000 At least in the culture.

00:46:30.000 At least in the culture.

00:46:31.000 And again, I'm perfectly happy to make the distinction between the culture and the legal.

00:46:35.000 But as I say, the culture predates the legal.

00:46:37.000 And as the culture degrades, the legal will quickly follow.

00:46:40.000 So what is the latest excuse for this?

00:46:41.000 Why is this all happening right now?

00:46:43.000 It's been on the way for a while, right?

00:46:44.000 I mean, I've been talking about this on college campuses since probably 10 years.

00:46:48.000 I was doing speeches on the death of free speech on college campuses way back in 2015.

00:46:52.000 But it's broken out on the surface again, obviously, because of the Black Lives Matter protests.

00:46:56.000 So why?

00:46:57.000 Why does Black Lives Matter have to be an attack?

00:47:00.000 Why is that being used as a way to restructure America's culture of rights in a great variety of ways?

00:47:06.000 The idea is that... Let's put it this way.

00:47:08.000 Why is cancel culture rising at the same level as the adherence and attention to Black Lives Matter?

00:47:12.000 These should not be apart from one another, right?

00:47:15.000 I mean, you could separate them.

00:47:17.000 You could separate those things.

00:47:19.000 And that would be a worthwhile thing.

00:47:23.000 You could take Black Lives Matter and also people are allowed to express their opinion.

00:47:27.000 They don't have to be tied together in other words, but they are tied together.

00:47:29.000 Why are they tied together?

00:47:30.000 Because the idea is if you uphold the system of rights that allows for people to speak in ways you don't want, you're reinforcing hierarchies of power and therefore the rights have to be shut down.

00:47:38.000 Parroting this message.

00:47:40.000 In a rather sophisticated way, Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts.

00:47:43.000 So, yesterday, Warren went to the well of the Senate, and she explained it was not enough to be not racist, you have to be anti-racist.

00:47:50.000 I'm going to explain what she means by this, and why this sort of language is deliberately vague, and also, the meaning that it does carry is just wrong.

00:47:57.000 It is morally wrong.

00:47:58.000 Here is what Elizabeth Warren has to say about racism. 0.74

00:48:02.000 Being race conscious is not enough.

00:48:05.000 It never was.

00:48:07.000 We must be anti-racists.

00:48:11.000 Removing the names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederacy and anyone who voluntarily served it from military property is, in the broader scheme, only one step toward addressing systemic racism in our society.

00:48:30.000 But it is an important step.

00:48:33.000 Okay, so, what does she mean by anti-racist?

00:48:36.000 Okay, this is a new language that we haven't heard until the past few years, right?

00:48:38.000 It used to be that there was racist and there was not racist, because racist was a discrimination, was a point of view on human beings that was, you were either it or you were not, right?

00:48:48.000 The idea was that you were racist if you believed that people were inherently inferior on the basis of race.

00:48:52.000 That was the definition of racism.

00:48:54.000 And then, you were not racist if you didn't believe that, in the same way that you were either religious or you're not religious.

00:48:59.000 Right, there were three categories.

00:49:00.000 Let's take religious as a good counterpoint. 0.92

00:49:02.000 Okay, you're religious, you believe in God.

00:49:03.000 And then there was not religious, which is, I don't really, I'm not, I don't believe in God, that's just not my thing.

00:49:08.000 And then there was anti-religious, which is you spend all your time, you spend all your time fighting the religious, right? 0.52

00:49:13.000 You're Richard Dawkins, you spend all your time fighting the religious. 0.93

00:49:16.000 So there are three categories.

00:49:17.000 Now the same thing could be true in terms of racism, right?

00:49:19.000 You could be racist, which is evil.

00:49:22.000 You could be not racist, in which case you don't believe in racism, you think that it is wrong.

00:49:26.000 And then you could be quote-unquote anti-racist, and presumably that would be like professional activist.

00:49:30.000 What members of the left have now done is they've collapsed the two categories.

00:49:33.000 So instead of three, you now have two categories.

00:49:35.000 The categories are you're either racist or you're anti-racist.

00:49:37.000 There's no such thing as not racist, right?

00:49:38.000 This is what Elizabeth Warren is saying.

00:49:41.000 This comes really courtesy of an Imran Kendi. 0.99

00:49:43.000 He's a very, very radical writer on these issues.

00:49:46.000 He's redefined the term racism to really mean that if you believe that individual human action is not a reflection of systems, then you are a racist.

00:49:56.000 And so you have to tear down the systems in order to affect the individual human action.

00:50:00.000 And he actually says, I mean, he has made the contention effectively.

00:50:03.000 I'm quoting Robin DiAngelo here.

00:50:05.000 The author of the crappy book, White Fragility, she says that Kendi has argued that if we truly believe that all humans are equal, disparity in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination.

00:50:15.000 So in other words, if there is one group of people and they are poorer than another group of people, the only possible reason that could happen, the only possible reason that could happen is because of discrimination.

00:50:24.000 And in fact, if you see two individuals and one of those individuals makes a bad decision and does something wrong and has a worse life, and another person doesn't do that, It is not that they made individual bad decisions.

00:50:33.000 They are both the products of the system.

00:50:34.000 The system itself has been discriminatory in subtle and evil ways, and that is why they are not ending with equality of outcome.

00:50:41.000 And Abraham Kennedy basically says this out loud, right?

00:50:43.000 He says in his book, How to Be an Antiracist, which is basically the textbook from which Warren is quoting.

00:50:47.000 He says, Now notice the false binary there. 0.98

00:50:48.000 There is a third choice.

00:50:48.000 Now notice the false binary there.

00:50:56.000 There is a third choice.

00:50:57.000 Problems are located in the individual, but individuals don't necessarily measure out equally across all various racial groups.

00:51:04.000 Because if you took literally any group of people in a room and you drew a line down the middle of the group of people, forget about race, just statistically speaking, they would not be equal in outcome in any way.

00:51:13.000 Any room in the world, you take a line, draw it randomly down the middle of the line, it will not be equal to people on the other sides of the room.

00:51:19.000 Because again, when you aggregate individuals, there are always differences.

00:51:22.000 This is just basic stats.

00:51:23.000 Okay, this has nothing to do with race.

00:51:25.000 But according to Ibram Kendi, if every individual does not end up with the same outcome, then you can blame the system.

00:51:31.000 And the system is racist.

00:51:32.000 And if you don't fight the system, you are not an anti-racist.

00:51:34.000 So he says that either you believe that problems are rooted in individual behavior, which could be disproportionately affecting a group of people because of a culture that exists in a particular community.

00:51:46.000 Culture doesn't matter here, right?

00:51:47.000 Culture does not exist in this view of the world.

00:51:50.000 Either it's groups of people, and so you're a racist because you believe groups of people are inferior, not the culture, not the people in a particular group disproportionately acting in a certain way because that happens statistically no matter which group you look at, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, right?

00:52:03.000 It's either the groups or it's the system, and there is no third option.

00:52:06.000 So you're either racist or you're anti-racist.

00:52:08.000 And if you're anti-racist, you have to tear down the system from the inside.

00:52:10.000 And if you have to tear down the system from the inside to be an anti-racist, that means shutting down all of the system's hallmarks.

00:52:16.000 The culture of rights, free speech, free expression.

00:52:18.000 These all must be torn down in the name of building a new, tolerant, better world.

00:52:23.000 That is the goal here.

00:52:24.000 That is what they're talking about.

00:52:25.000 And as Kennedy says, one either allows racial inequities to persevere as a racist, or confronts racial inequities as an anti-racist.

00:52:32.000 But he means racial inequalities.

00:52:34.000 He means any inequality is an inequity.

00:52:36.000 He openly says this.

00:52:37.000 He says any inequality is a reflection of a racist system, and if you don't fight the system, then you are not anti-racist.

00:52:43.000 And if you're not anti-racist, because you're not fighting the system, you are by definition racist.

00:52:46.000 Because remember, there's a binary.

00:52:47.000 There is no third category of not racist.

00:52:49.000 It doesn't exist.

00:52:51.000 That is what Elizabeth Warren is talking about.

00:52:52.000 That is why the quote-unquote anti-racist movement driven by people like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram Kendi, that is why they're pushing for the destruction of the system, and it's why you are seeing the push for that movement existing at the same time as the push for more censorship.

00:53:09.000 They don't have to be linked, but that is why they are linked.

00:53:11.000 Okay, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content, including all the COVID stuff that I didn't get to and plenty of more material.

00:53:17.000 Go check us out over at dailywire.com and go get a copy of my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps at dailywire.com slash Ben.

00:53:24.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.

00:53:25.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:53:25.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:53:31.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas, executive producer Jeremy Boring, supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, assistant director Pavel Lydowsky, technical producer Austin Stevens, playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan, associate producer Katie Swinnerton, edited by Adam Sajovic, audio is mixed by Mike Koromina, hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.

00:53:51.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.

00:53:56.000 Public health experts lock us down again, a wealthy couple brandishes guns against rioters, and the Supreme Court burns conservatives yet again.

The Ben Shapiro Show - June 30, 2020

Supreme Betrayal | Ep. 1042

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript