Ep. 2228 - STILL WINNING: Senate Passes Big, Beautiful Bill, PLUS Supreme Court Sides With Trump!

Summary

Summary of "The Ben Shapiro Show" Episode 2228

Title: STILL WINNING: Senate Passes Big, Beautiful Bill, PLUS Supreme Court Sides With Trump!
Release Date: June 30, 2025
Host: The Daily Wire
Description: Ben Shapiro delivers unfiltered conservative analysis on current events, focusing on legislative victories and Supreme Court decisions supporting President Trump.

---

1. Introduction and Overview

The episode kicks off with Ben Shapiro and co-host Andrew Klavan diving into significant political developments. They highlight the recent passage of the Senate's "Big Beautiful Bill" and favorable Supreme Court rulings for President Trump and conservative policies.

---

2. Senate Passes the Big Beautiful Bill

Timestamp: [00:31] – [05:13]

• Senate Approval:
  Andrew Klavan reports that Senate Republicans successfully passed their version of the "Big Beautiful Bill," a comprehensive tax bill aimed at maintaining President Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The bill also allocates funding for border security, including building the wall, and addresses various immigration enforcement measures.

• Close Vote Details:
  "The vote was incredibly close. Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, opposed some of the cuts, particularly in Medicaid spending," remarks Klavan.

• Leadership Efforts:
  Senate Majority Leader John Thune and President Trump played pivotal roles in securing the necessary votes. Trump's personal intervention included lobbying Thom Tillis and publicly addressing opposition to ensure the bill's passage.

• Quote from Senator John Kennedy:
  [03:52]
  Sen. John Kennedy:
  “We need to start voting. Everybody needs to adult real hard. And the jackassery has to stop.”

  Kennedy emphasizes the necessity of decisive action, acknowledging that compromise is inevitable in large legislation.

• Kathy Britt's Praise:
  [05:50]
  Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama:
  “We're going to unleash American energy... putting the American people first... more of their hard-earned money back in their pocket.”

---

3. Supreme Court Victories Favoring Trump and Conservatives

Timestamp: [27:37] – [34:00]

• Key Rulings:
  The Supreme Court handed down three significant decisions favoring conservatives. The most notable was Trump vs. Casa, Inc., challenging the executive order on birthright citizenship.

• Birthright Citizenship Case:
  Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, rejecting lower court’s nationwide injunctions against Trump's executive orders.
  Justice Barrett:
  “You cannot have any individual district court judges moving beyond the scope of their authority... the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”

• Dissenting Opinions:
  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing for the necessity of universal injunctions to check executive power. The majority criticized her stance as lacking historical precedent and judicial restraint.

• Ben Shapiro's Commentary:
  Shapiro vehemently supports the majority ruling, dismissing the dissent as "horrible opinions" and emphasizing the importance of judicial limits.

• Elon Musk's Criticism:
  Musk condemned the bill, stating, “The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country.”

---

4. Additional Supreme Court Decisions

Timestamp: [34:00] – [56:46]

• Mahmoud vs. Taylor:
  The Court ruled in favor of parents' rights to opt their children out of LGBTQ+ indoctrination in schools, citing First Amendment protections.
  Justice Samuel Alito:
  “Parents have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction... parents can generally opt out of instruction that contradicts a child's religious upbringing.”

• Free Speech Coalition vs. Paxton:
  The Court upheld Texas's ability to impose age verification on pornography websites, balancing free speech with protecting minors.
  Justice Thomas:
  “Recognized states have two distinct powers to address obscenity... they may prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to children.”

---

5. Political Analysis and Commentary

Timestamp: [56:46] – [64:53]

• Comparisons to Historical Figures:
  Klavan draws parallels between current political figures and historical anti-Semitic leaders, warning of a potential decline similar to pre-World War II Vienna under Carl Luger (a figure admired by Adolf Hitler).

• Critique of Progressive Mayoral Candidate:
  Zoran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City Mayor, is scrutinized for his anti-capitalist stance and perceived anti-Semitic views.
  Klavan:
  “He is a rabid Jew-hater, a full-scale anti-Semite who supports terrorism.”

• Warning of Internal Threats:
  The hosts express concern that internal political extremism poses a greater threat to Western civilization than external forces, citing incidents like anti-Israel rhetoric at the Glastonbury Festival.

---

6. President Trump's International Efforts

Timestamp: [64:11] – [65:59]

• Peace Agreements:
  President Trump announces successful peace deals between Congo and Rwanda, positioning himself as a global peacemaker.
  President Trump:
  “This is a tremendous breakthrough... we were able to stop it.”

• Military Readiness:
  Trump boasts about the precision of U.S. military strikes, reinforcing America’s military prowess.

---

7. Debunking Historical Myths

Timestamp: [65:39] – [71:20]

• 1619 Myth Addressed:
  Klavan debunks the myth that the United States was founded on slavery, citing historical records of Northern states abolishing slavery and foundational documents opposing the institution.

• Emphasis on Western Virtues:
  The hosts argue that Western civilization is inherently virtuous, contrasting it with the perceived moral decay of opposing political factions.

---

8. Conclusion and Upcoming Topics

As the episode wraps up, Shapiro and Klavan reiterate their support for President Trump’s policies and caution listeners about the rising internal threats to Western civilization. They encourage listeners to celebrate Independence Day with pride and remain vigilant against misinformation and political extremism.

---

Notable Quotes

1. Sen. John Kennedy:
   “We need to start voting. Everybody needs to adult real hard. And the jackassery has to stop.”
   [03:52]

2. Justice Amy Coney Barrett:
   “You cannot have any individual district court judges moving beyond the scope of their authority... the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.”
   [Various timestamps]

3. Sen. Katie Britt:
   “We're going to unleash American energy... putting the American people first... more of their hard-earned money back in their pocket.”
   [05:50]

4. President Trump:
   “This is a tremendous breakthrough... we were able to stop it.”
   [64:11]

---

Key Takeaways

• Legislative Success: The Senate’s passage of the "Big Beautiful Bill" marks a significant conservative legislative victory, aiming to sustain Trump's tax policies and bolster border security.

• Judicial Affirmations: Recent Supreme Court decisions bolster President Trump’s agenda, particularly concerning birthright citizenship and parental rights in education.

• Internal Political Threats: The hosts warn of rising internal political extremism, drawing historical parallels to early 20th-century anti-Semitic movements.

• Presidential Diplomacy: President Trump continues to assert his influence on the global stage, broker peace deals, and maintain military strength.

• Historical Accuracy: The episode emphasizes correcting misconceptions about America's foundational principles, particularly regarding slavery and Western civilization's moral standing.

---

This detailed summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and positions presented in Episode 2228 of "The Ben Shapiro Show," providing a comprehensive overview for those who have not listened to the episode.

Transcript

[Ben Shapiro]

In the summer, all of Oregon is our playground thanks to our incredible park system.

[Michael Knowles]

That's why it's so cool that Oregon.

[Ben Shapiro]

Lottery gameplay like video lottery or cash pop helps support tons of parks projects statewide like accessible trails at Silver Falls State park or upgrades to your favorite dog park in Newburgh. It's just one way a little lottery play for many Oregonians can add up to a lot of good the Oregon Lottery. Together we do good things. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only. Must be 18 or older to play.

[Andrew Klavan]

Alrighty folks, tons on today's show. The Big Beautiful Bill is moving forward. Plus full scale anti Semitism and anti Westernism at the Glastonbury Festival in the uk and the Supreme Court hands a bunch of victories to President Trump and conservatives a lot coming up first, our Independence Day celebration begins right now with six months of Daily Wire plus absolutely free. Here's the deal. Join Daily Wire plus for a year we'll cover half the cost. That's every daily ad free show from the most trusted voices in conservative media, unlimited access to our premium entertainment breaking news alerts and and our in depth investigative journalism all in one place, all for half the price. You're not just signing up for a membership, you're taking a stand with millions who share your values. Don't miss it. Get six months free with our 4th of July deal right now at DailyWire+.com Alrighty folks. So the winds keep coming for President Trump. On Saturday night, Senate Republicans finally passed their version of the big beautiful bill. The one big beautiful bill. This is the tax bill that is going to retain President Trump's tax cuts from 2017. It is also going to provide funding for building the wall and other immigration enforcement bill matters. Is going to provide certain subsidies in certain areas, going to take away subsidies in other areas. The vote was incredibly close. Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, of course, of course. And Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who opposed some of the cuts to future spending in Medicaid in particular, they opposed. But the bill passed 5149. In terms of starting debate on the legislation. That means that in all likelihood this bill is going to come to a vote. And in the House of Representatives sometime this week, President Trump's goal of getting this thing done by July 4th is going to be kept. According to Politico, the vote came after a day long scramble by GOP leaders to win over several Republican senators who were viewed as undecided or who had vowed to block debate over their opposition to pieces of the bill, including an extended negotiating session that unfolded with various senators and Vice President J.D. vance while the vote was underway. Now, you had Ron Johnson, Senator Ron Johnson, he's been a guest on the program of Wisconsin. He had opposed the bill. He apparently won a promise of an amendment vote related to the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. That proposal would end the 90% federal cost share for new enrollees under that arrangement, which guts one of the big aspects of Obamacare. Basically, it says that if the states want Obamacare, they're going to pay more for Obamacare. Why should the federal government have to subsidize all of that? Senate Majority Leader John Thune declined to comment on those concessions. But Johnson suggested that Thune and Trump would support the amendment, which had first been promoted by Florida Senator Rick Scott. So there are enough sort of giveaways to the fiscal hawk wing to get Ron Johnson on board. Senator Mike Lee of Utah also was part of the huddle, and he told reporters that part of the conversation focused on deficit reduction. Now, again, there could theoretically be a blow up before this is all said and done. But President Trump personally intervened Friday and Saturday to shore up the whip count. He did aggressively lobby Thom Tillis on Friday night, and then he attacked him publicly. But he lobbied some of the other senators as well. Apparently, JD Vance interceded after the vote was called to win over Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, and then he went to work on the other holdouts as well. Senator Josh Howley also jumped on board. So again, we'll see what the final result here is. However, it looks like the big beautiful bill is moving toward passage. Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, he said, listen, it's time to vote. Enough of this.

[Senator John Kennedy]

Well, I believe in teamwork. It gives you somebody to blame. But, but at some point, you've got to make a decision. Now, our quarterbacks are John Thune and Mike Crapo. They're both rock stars. They're trying to make everybody happy. It can't be done. We have, we have cussed and discussed and rediscussed. We need to start voting. Everybody needs to adult, adult real hard. And, and, and, and the jackassery has to stop. I have encouraged John and Mike to tell everyone, look, we're going to start voting tomorrow at noon. If you're not happy, offer an amendment. We'll have a full amendment process. But here's the bottom line in any legislation of this magnitude, some people are just going to have to settle for a ham and egg sandwich without the ham that's just the nature of the beast. And I think that if you put everybody to the test and say, look, this is why God made votes, it's time vote, I think the bill will pass.

[Andrew Klavan]

Yeah. Senator Kennedy is correct about that. As I said from the very outset, with regard to the one big beautiful bill, the choices were this high taxes and high spending or less high taxes and slightly lower spending than that. Those were the choices. There was no bill here that was going to fix America's massive deficit problem or massive debt problem. There's not the support in the American body politic for that sort of thing. The real changes that need to be made are not going to be made around the edges. There was not even support to go back to 2019 levels of spending, which again, would not fix our national debt. It would be a lot better, but it wasn't going to fix our national debt. Senator Katie Britt of Alabama also came out praising the big beautiful bill. Here she was.

[Katie Britt]

We have been working tirelessly. I think today we finished our 51st meeting on the big beautiful bill, talking about different perspectives, trying to make sure that it's the very best product for the American people. We're going to ensure that we secure our border, that that's not just for now, that, but we're doing that for generations to come. We're going to make sure that the defense cap are of the utmost importance and that our warfighter is the best trained, equipped and ready across the planet. I think we have seen over the last several weeks and this week in particular, how important that is. We're going to unleash American energy. Kellyann. We know it's important not only for our economy, but it's also important for national security. And then when you look at the tax breaks that we're going to have for everyday hard working Americans, President Trump has insured, whether it's no tax on tips or no tax on overtime, and that we are putting the American people first. We're giving them more of their hard earned money right back in their pocket and we're going to make significant strides.

[Andrew Klavan]

Okay, so again, a lot of this is true and some of the moderates in the House and in the Senate have come around. So of course have some of the fiscal hawks. Mike Lawler, who is a sort of holdout on the bill, given the fact that he's from New York, and a lot of the Congress people from New York are Republican, are worried about losing their districts if they do not get salt deductions that are high enough. Salt of course, our state and local tax deductions so taken before the federal tax income is is actually established. He came out in a Saturday interview and said he supported the latest version of the state and local tax deduction in the Senate's mega bill, praising it as a big win. He said, in negotiation, you've got to know how to define a win and to take yes for an answer. The latest Senate bill raises the SALT deduction up to $40,000 through 2029. Now again, these are policies I don't like. I don't like the state and local tax deduction. I think it's ridiculous. I think it's insane that the taxpayers of Florida who do not pay a state income tax are supposed to subsidize people who live in New York and California so that the state of New York or the state of California can continue to maintain these massively high taxes on their own citizens. With that said, when you make a big piece of legislation, it is a game of horse trading and swapping and all the rest. And it's actually gotten worse since the death of so called earmarks. So earmarks were all those things everybody hated where a senator would have a bridge named after him in a federal bill. Everyone was like, ah, that's super corrupt. It's super terrible. Okay, but here's the problem. Everybody in Congress has to show their district they brought home the bacon. So it either comes home in the form of a post office named after them or it comes in the form of a gigantic provision that provides for state and local tax deductions. I'd much rather have the post office named for Mike Lawler in his local district than have this gigantic state and local tax deduction in the state of New York. But they got rid of earmarks and thus you are stuck with actually bigger spending in many ways than you would have had if you just had the sort of Christmas tree where people put ornaments on the Christmas tree. And meanwhile, Josh Hawley, who is a holdout on the big beautiful bill, he said on Saturday that he would back the signature legislation. He said, I'm going to vote yes on the bill. He said he was satisfied by a change that would help delay implementing changes to the provider tax language which most states use to help cover Medicaid costs. He said he was also encouraged by an increase in the rural hospital fund, which, which means his state will get more Medicaid funding for the next four years. So again, much of the sort of solve here was bigger spending in certain areas. Now, the place that really did get slapped was green energy. And this led Elon Musk to come out and condemn the bill again. Quote, the latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country. He called it utterly insane and destructive to give handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the past of the future. Now, again, one of the problems for Elon and for many of the people in sort of the tech space in the bill is that the bill gets rid of a lot of tax subsidies for electric vehicles. It does provide certain tax subsidies for the coal industry. It also apparently provides a sort of excise tax on wind farms and solar cells past 2027. So the bill is in fact a slap against green energy. But here's the question. Can green energy actually live up to its promise or is it going to have to be subsidized by the American taxpayer forever? What is the goal here? Bottom line is this for all of this. Again, the horse trading will continue. There will be many more changes before we reach the final version of this bill because once it passes the Senate, the House has already passed its own version, then they have to go to reconciliation. A committee gets put together, they negotiate. I'm sure they're going to be negotiating all through the night, many times this week until this thing actually gets passed. But if the bill were not to pass, you would see the severe possibility of a true economic downturn. Because the reality is that there's some economic data suggesting that a downturn may be headed for us anyway. And there's some weakening economic data, even despite the fact that the Dow Jones industrial average is hitting all time highs right now that it's recovering. According to the Wall Street Journal, investors may not think the economy is taking off, but they're probably relieved. The worst case scenarios feared in recent months have not yet come to pass. But Trump's tariffs, deportations and cuts to the federal bureaucracy have bent the economy. But they haven't broken it. The S&P 500 plummeted 19% from its previous high in February to its 2025 low on April 8. Behind that drop, fears that Trump's threatened tariffs of as high as 145% on China and 50% on other major trading partners would send inflation and interest rates up, SAP business and consumer confidence and spark a recession instead. President Trump, of course, significantly dialed back a lot of those gigantic tariffs in recent months. Business confidence fell amid those tariff threats, but businesses kept investing in equipment, factories and technology. Jason Furman, Harvard economics professor who advised Obama, said the macro economy is doing decently, he says the market is more confident that Trump will back off if necessary. Now again, I've said this before, President Trump lives in the world of reality and so the chances were pretty strong that he was going to eventually back off some of this tariff war as the effects started to to be felt. And President Trump would love nothing better than for the Federal Reserve to lower the interest rates. That's only going to happen if he backs off a lot of the tariff talk that he has been doing. All right. Coming up, big victories for President Trump and conservatives at the Supreme Court. First, Pure Talk My wireless company, a veteran led company, believes every man and woman who's faithfully served the country deserves to proudly fly an American flag made in America. That's why PureTalk is on a mission to give an allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, period, to 1,000 US veterans in time for the patriotic holidays. Just switch your cell phone service to Pure Talk this month. A portion of every sale will go to provide these high quality flags to deserving veterans. With plans from just 25 bucks a month for unlimited talk, text and plenty of data, you can enjoy America's most dependable 5G network while cutting your cell phone bill in half. The average family saves over $1,000 a year. We use Pure Talk all the time. For coverage, for text, for business, for research, just go to PureTalk.com Shapiro switch hassle free in as little as 10 minutes. Again, that's PureTalk.com Shapiro support veterans and to switch to America's wireless company Pure Talk. You're not going to be spending the kind of money you're spending right now and your coverage is just as good and you're helping out a veteran. Head on over to Pure Talk.com Shapiro and switch hassle free in as little as 10 minutes. Again, that's Pure Talk.com Shapiro to support veterans this July 4th. Also this month, Tax Network USA proudly celebrates our nation's birthday, honoring freedom, resilience and financial independence. To mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off all services through July 4th. If you're dealing with back taxes or if you missed that April 15th deadline, don't wait. The IRS is rapidly stepping up. Enforcement penalties can add up quickly up to 5% per month, maxing out at 25% of your total tax bill just for not filing. That's on top of what you already owe. But there's good news. Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around. Whether you're self employed, run a business or your books are a complete mess. Their team knows how to cut through the chaos and find solutions that work. Your consultation is always free. Getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties, wage garnishments or surprise bank levies. To take that first step, call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com Shapiro don't forget, you'll get 10% off all services through July 4th as part of their celebration of our nation's birthday. Regain control of your finances with expert help from Tax Network USA. Give them a call right now, 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com shapiro Again, that's 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com Shapiro the last thing President Trump wants or needs is an economic downturn. The big, beautiful bill will provide a sense of stasis and calm to the markets that has been lacking for the past several months. So that's a big victory for President Trump's A huge victory for Senate Majority Leader Thune. If the Republicans are able to cobble together a majority in a Senate where they have only 53 seats, and in a House where they have a majority by a couple of seats, that is indeed a piece of tremendous legislative leisure domain by both speaker of the House Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Thune. President Trump gets another huge victory. Speaking of huge victories, on Friday the Supreme Court of the United States issued three separate rulings, all of which benefit people who are conservative, one of which benefits the Trump administration in particular. So the most hotly covered of these particular opinions is Trump versus Casa, Inc. This is a case connected with the Executive Order that President Trump issued immediately upon entering office, suggesting that the executive branch should no longer recognize, quote, unquote, birthright citizenship for people who do not have at least one parent who's an American citizen. So the basic idea is that if you come across the border illegally with your spouse and then you drop a baby in the United States, that baby should no longer be considered a citizen. Now, there are two real issues here. One is the meaning of birthright citizenship. And that is an interesting, fascinating argument about the meaning of the clause in the 14th Amendment, Clause 1 and Section 201 of the Nationality act of 1940, which suggests that you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof in order to be a citizen of the United States. So if you're a Mexican citizen and you are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, but you're here illegally and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of American law in the Same way as a citizen, or really, you should not be treated as a citizen, and neither should the baby that you have in the United States. That's the case made by the Trump administration. On the other side of the ledger, people will argue that since essentially the Beginning of the 20th century, birthright citizenship has been the predicate law for immigrants coming to the United States ever since a Supreme Court case called Wam Kim Arc. Okay, but that particular matter was put to the side in this case. The real question was whether a district court judge the can issue a nationwide injunction to stop the implementation of the executive order. So here the question is one that we've seen over and over and over again. That question is, can a district court judge say, based on a single case out of California or New York or Hawaii, that all across the country an executive order or a piece of legislation cannot go into effect based on a single district court judge somewhere out there? And the answer, the court found, is absolutely not. That's ridiculous. You cannot have any individual district court judges moving beyond the scope of their authority in order to declare nationwide injunctions that essentially, if you come to a district court judge and you say, this law has violated my rights, the district court can put an injunction on the federal government with regard to you, you are the plaintiff, but it can't put not put an injunction on everyone across the entire land vis a vis this law. The opinion was delivered by Amy Coney Barrett. So first of all, I'd like to point out that all the people who are ripping on Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. Full disclosure, I was a member of the Federalist Society when I was in law school because it was the conservative institution and is the conservative institution for law students and legal professionals. People who are ripping on Leonard Leo for suggesting. Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court of the United States. Let me just point out that just because she doesn't vote the way you want on every single case does not make her David Suter. It does not make her Justice Breyer. She is a very textualist judge. So she wrote the opinion of the court, and it is a very clear opinion. She says that the United States courts are not capable of simply issuing at the district court level, nationwide injunctions. Why? Well, because there is no actual predicate to this. Congress has never granted federal courts the authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy. As she says in this opinion. She says the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument regarding the scope of relief. A universal injunction can only be justified as an exercise of equitable authority. But Congress has never granted federal courts that sort of power. The Judiciary act of 1789 Endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over all suits in equity. And still today, the statute is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies. But that is not total equitable authority. So in other words, they would have to have a special delegated authority. Quote, Neither the universal injunction nor any analogous form of relief was available in the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the founding. Equity offered a mechanism for the crown to secure justice where it would not be secured by ordinary and existing processes of law. But that never extended to the idea of gigantic nationwide injunctions, even going all the way back to, to the founding era. As Justice Barrett points out in a 6:3 majority for the court that there is no long standing record of universal nationwide injunctions being issued by courts. Quote, the universal injunction was conspicuously non existent for most of our nation's history. Its absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority. That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible. Even during the deluge of constitutional litigation that occurred in the wake of Ex Parte Young. Throughout the Lochner era, at the dawn of the New Deal, universal injunctions were nowhere to be found. So as Justice Barrett points out, there is no serious history of a nationwide injunction issued by a district court. You cannot just have one judge in, in Los Angeles, California issue an injunction on all national law based on a singular case brought before the court. So there is a, a, a rather hilarious portion of this opinion. And that is where Justice Barrett, as well as the rest of the court, absolutely rips into Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, who has seized the high ground as the worst member of the court. So I thought it was Sonia Sotomayor by a long shot. Sonia Sotomayor is an awful justice, truly dumb. She writes horrible, horrible opinions. Elena Kagan, who is dean of the Harvard Law School and I was there, is a smart person with whom I disagree. Justice otomayor has evidenced zero smarts. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has evidenced not only zero smarts, but zero actual principles. So this, this opinion just rips apart Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's dissent, which honestly, it sounds like it was written by a first year law school student who's familiar with online memory but not with law. The opinion says Justice Jackson chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to any sources nor frankly, any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a mind numbingly technical query, she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to order everyone to follow the lawful stop. And, she warns, if courts lack the power to require the executive to adhere to law universally, courts will leave a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound. Rhetoric aside, says the opinion, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down. She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate, even required, whenever the defendant is part of the executive branch. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions at best. As we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction. Justice Jackson appears to believe the reasoning behind any court order demands universal adherence, at least where the executive is concerned. In her law declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment. Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires, and the executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere. We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, says Justice Barrett, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. No one disputes the executive has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation. In fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so. See Marbury vs Madison. What a slap that is. Just for the lawyers in the crowd. Marbury vs Madison is like the number one constitutional law case because it establishes the idea of Supreme Court judicial oversight of legislative action or executive action. Right. That. That is the idea of Marbury vs Madison. It established judicial review, but what it found was that James Madison, who was then president, had violated the law. But. But it also held that the court couldn't actually issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it. So this. That is such a br. That's like you're a first year law school student and so you do not get to lecture us if you don't know Marbury versus Madison, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Is basically the idea here. What a brutal put down by the majority of the court against Justice Jackson. And again, her dissent is indeed quite astonishing. Not only is it laden with terrible arguments, but it is written with actual memes. I mean, she actually says at one point, as I understand the concern in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of government, the majority sees a power grab, but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, the majority, the power hungry actors, are. Wait for it, the district Court. Okay, like, can I just point out, putting wait for it in a Supreme Court opinion like that between two ellipses. You're not writing for X.com, justice Jackson. You're making a ridiculous argument, but you're arguing it in the worst possible way also. So just a brutal fate for Justice Jackson in that particular case. But what does that mean? Well, it means that the President of the United States can now move forward with the implementation of his executive orders until the Supreme Court weighs in on the actual law at issue for the whole country, which is how the appellate courts work. So, in other words, this does not mean that President Trump can now simply expel all kids who are born of illegal immigrant parents. That's going to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. It'll be ruled on in October, and the court will probably find, I would imagine by maybe a vote to 7 to 2 or 6 to 3, that actually birthright citizenship is what the Constitution orders, or at least what President precedent requires. It'd be kind of shocking if the Supreme Court found the other way. Regardless of my feelings about the issue, and for the record, I think that actually birthright citizenship is not mandated by the Constitution. President Trump, for his part, put out a statement on truth social quote, giant win in the US Supreme Court. Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves same year, not the scamming of our immigration process. What he means by that is that birthright citizenship is not what is meant by the 14th Amendment when it says that people who are born or naturalized in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, he means, correctly, that enslaved people are citizens. That's what the 14th amendment was designed to do. Congratulations to Attorney General Pambani, Solicitor General John Tower and the entire doj. Coming up, another big victory for President Trump at the Supreme Court. First, you've heard me say it before. The past matters. So if you've got a box of old tapes, photos, film reels sitting around. Now would be the time to do something about it. Legacy Box is offering my listeners 50% off. Just head on over to legacybox.com Shapiro My family's got old home movies just like yours. Some of them I hadn't seen in decades. Legacy Box made it ridiculously easy to bring them back. You send in your tapes, reels, whatever you got. Their team in the US digitizes everything by hand. Then you get it all back. Your originals plus clean digital files you can store, share and rewatch anytime. They've helped over a million families do exactly this and they can handle more than 15 types of media. VHS, Super 8, cassette tapes, photo negatives, you name it. I've done this for my parents, I this for my in laws. It is awesome. You send all of your old stuff that's just out there falling apart in the garage to Legacy Box. You get it back in a digital format so you can actually see these memories again. And it's like seeing them for the first time. It's amazing. Go to legacybox.com Shapiro claim 50% off. That's legacybox.com Shapiro preserve it, share it, pass it on. You don't want to lose all that family history. Head over to legacybox.com Shapiro and claim 50% off today also. I always used to assume that restless sleep was inevitable. Night after night, tossing, turning, waking up with that aching back, I convinced myself that's how sleep was supposed to be. And then I tried Helix Sleep and everything changed. It's truly been transformative for my sleep quality. Now I easily fall asleep in minutes, even when current news stories are continuously demanding my attention. What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress. They actually match you with the perfect mattress for your body and sleep style. Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, somewhere in between, they have you covered. They make it so simple to get your best night's sleep every night. All you have to do is take their sleep quiz, get matched with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences. And trust me, when you find the right match, you'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else. Now right now I'm not at home, which means I'm not sleeping on my Helix Sleep mattress. I gotta tell you, it's affecting my sleep quality. I want my Helix Sleep mattress. It was made just for me. You can have the same done for you. Right now. Helix is offering an incredible Fourth of July sale. Visit helixsleep.comBen get 27% off site wide. That's helixleep.commen for 27% off site wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you. Again, just visit helixsleep.commen for this exclusive offer. She was President Trump listing off some of the policies he would now be pushing at a press conference on Friday.

[Donald Trump]

Some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore. That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation. This was in fact, it was the same date, the exact same date. The end of the Civil War was meant for the babies of slaves. And it's so clean and so obvious. But this lets us go there and finally win that case because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship. And it wasn't meant for that reason. It was meant for the babies of slaves. So thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrong strongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people. We have so many of them.

[Andrew Klavan]

So again, President Trump triumphal about this. Pambani, the attorney general, she points out that these nationwide injunctions are basically coming from some of the most liberal courts in the country.

[Katie Britt]

To put this in perspective, there are 94 federal judicial districts. Five of those districts throughout this country held 35 of the nationwide injunctions. Think about that. 94 districts and 35 out of the four 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this country. No longer.

[Andrew Klavan]

So she is right about that. Chief Justice Roberts made a good point. So Chief justice, again, I oppose his nomination. I don't think he's been an amazing justice. I think that he is more of a judicial pragmatist than he is a true textualist or originalist. But he makes the point that it's not your job to to decide in advance what the outcome of the case is going to be. It's your job to actually look at the case. So this is a slap against Ketanji, Brown Jackson, among others.

[Michael Knowles]

I don't start by saying if this comes out this way, this thing is going to happen and that's a bad thing as opposed to that you start out with your rules about construction, about the application of precedent and all that. Now if you that leads you to a result that you look at and say, well, that's, that can't, that's pretty bad. Then you go, want to go back and look at your suppositions. But you know, sometimes the result is certainly not maybe one you would have liked and maybe it's one that seems pretty surprising. But you do have to keep in mind it's not your job to decide what the right result should look like. It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can. If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it. But I don't, I don't start from what the result looks like and, you know, go backwards.

[Andrew Klavan]

So that is the way that you're supposed to approach the law. That obviously is not true for many people on the left side of the bench. Scott Jennings over on cnn who does a great job, he actually quoted Elena Kagan, who voted the other way on this particular case from 2022 about nationwide injunctions in which she felt precisely the opposite when it was a non left wing court holding up an action of Joe Biden. I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer. And I just want to quote it because I think she was right when she said it. It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks. Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that of course, when we had a Democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks. Okay, now again, he is totally right about this. Members of the media of course, went insane. They've been declaring that imperial presidency is the thing since Trump. Okay, here's the reality. The power of the executive has expanded continuously for an extraordinary period of time in this country. That's particularly true since the Obama era. Since the Obama era, when Barack Obama decided that he was going to use a pen and a phone, he said this. If I can't get things done through legislation, I will just use my pen and my phone to do things. Since that happened, executive power has increased tremendously, all the way up to and including, of course, Joe Biden who tried to use osha. We had to sue him to stop this OSHA to cram down a vaccine on 80 million Americans. Okay? So don't lecture me now about how now we have a king. All the same people who are complaining about Donald Trump now were very happy when Joe Biden was using executive authority to illegally alleviate student loans. Here's CNN's Gretchen Carlson. However, doing this routine, the first thing.

[Katie Britt]

That came to mind today to me was that we may now have a king. This is so different from how the separation of powers have worked in this nation for decades and decades. So, look, big picture, yes, huge win for Trump. But something I want to bring up tonight is that I believe this will change the way that politicking works in America, because this won't just be for President Trump. And if a Democrat would become president in three and a half years, they would be given this same power. So this will change the way in which we politic in America, I believe, unless Congress steps in and supersedes this.

[Andrew Klavan]

So, I mean, again, that's an insane statement. We don't have a. We have a king now. This is not the way policy. This is literally always how policy has worked. If you think that there's any president in American history who would have sat by while a district court judge simply annulled presidential edicts across the entire land, you're out of your mind. That's not a real thing. Meanwhile, Jen Psaki says, well, you know, the only reason the courts are even issuing these injunctions is because Trump is dictatorial. Or maybe the reason they're issuing these injunctions is because many of these judges in district courts in left leaning areas are of the political left. Maybe so.

[Katie Britt]

The only institutional bulwark against Trump's autocratic impulses has been the third branch of government, the courts. And as Trump has pushed the limits of his power, the courts have had to check him over and over and.

[Andrew Klavan]

Over again, largely the lower courts issuing.

[Katie Britt]

Nationwide injunctions to halt his executive orders.

[Andrew Klavan]

As they decide what authority he actually has under the Constitution.

[Katie Britt]

In fact, Trump's actions have been so extreme, the courts have had to use that power to stop him more than.

[Andrew Klavan]

Any other president in modern history. I'm sorry, just because the courts are doing it more to Trump does not mean that Trump is more dictatorial, might mean that the courts are trying to seize more power. MSNBC's Ellie Mistol, who for some reason is the legal analyst over there, he and Ali Velshi decided to talk about what? What if Trump wanted to murder you, would the court stop it?

[Ben Shapiro]

Imagine Donald Trump wants to do something illegal to you. Ali Velshi, Imagine that he wants to murder you. Imagine that he and Stephen Miller release an entire politician policy, explaining about how they can murder Canadian journalists who are working in America because they're taking the jobs from real American journalists, Right? So he's going to murder you. So you, Ali Velshi, you go to court. You go to court in the Southern District of New York, and you say, like, I don't. I don't. I don't think this murder thing is constitutional. It's clearly illegal. It's clearly constitutional. Donald Trump and. And Pam Bondi and Stephen Miller shouldn't be able to have a plan to murder me. And the court says, you're right, Ali Velshi, there's no way Donald Trump is allowed to murder you. We're gonna have an injunction. We're gonna stay the executive order saying that he's gonna murder Canadian journalists. And so you're like, great, awesome. And you go home, and then Pat Kiernan shows up and he's like, what about me? I'm also a Canadian. Ashley Banfield shows up. I'm also Canadian. What about me and the court? Well, I can't help you because Ali Velshi is the one who sued. So, Pat Kieran, if you don't want to be murdered, you have to launch your entire own lawsuit in the Southern District of New York again to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't murder you.

[Andrew Klavan]

Okay, so, first of all, if President Trump were to create an executive order to murder actual journalists, the Supreme Court would immediately take that up immediately. There is an acceleratory process by which the Supreme Court can take up these cases very quickly. It would be struck down by the Supreme Court. I love that they have to go to the. The worst that would happen here is President Trump might want to murder everyone, and so everyone would have to bring an individual lawsuit. But the Supreme Court would never take it up. They would just remain. What ridiculous, speculative nonsense. Because the actual reality is that the other way is that any district court anywhere in America can simply invalidate a presidential action for the entirety of America, always. That is the case that Ellie Mistel and the rest of these folks are making, and it failed at the Supreme Court level. Okay, so that was case number one. In a second, we'll get to the socialist takeover of New York and, you know, some bad history associated with this sort of thing. First, you know, when you're getting ready for bed, going around locking doors, turning off lights, you just want that peace of mind, knowing everything's secure. That's exactly what you get with Simplisafe. It really makes all the difference when it comes to home security. Most security systems only kick in after someone's already broken into your home. By then, it's too late. But SimpliSafe's new Active Guard Outdoor Protection actually helps stop break ins before they even happen. Here's how it works. AI powered cameras work with live monitoring agents to spot suspicious activity around your property. If someone's lurking around, the agents can talk to them in real time. Turn on spotlights, call the cops if necessary. It stops crime before it starts. What I really like is there are no contracts and no hidden fees. Plus, SimpliSafe has serious credibility. CNET just named them the best home security system of 2025. Over 4 million Americans trust them. They're also ranked number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today. We personally have SimpliSafe systems at our studios in South Florida. It's great. It means that when we leave the cameras at night, they'll be there in the morning. Monitoring plans start around a buck a day. They offer a 60 day money back guarantee. You can try it risk free. Visit simplisafe.com Shapiro claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan. Get your first month for free. That's simplisafe.com Shapiro there's no safe like SimpliSafe. Also make your home look spectacular this summer and all year round. Early access to blinds.com 4th of July mega Sale is now live. It's the easiest upgrade you'll make all season. Blinds.com makes shopping for custom window treatment simple. No showroom markups. No pushy salespeople showing up at your door. Whether you're a DIY person or you want that full white glove service, their virtual design experts work on your schedule to help you find the perfect fit. They can even handle measuring and installation if you want. From classic shutters for your living room to blackout shades for better sleep, motorized options for convenience, or outdoor shades for your patio, you can style every room from your couch on your time without any pressure. Blinds.com makes it super simple. They help us measure the windows they help install. If we can't do it ourselves. Like really soup to nuts. They're really easy. With over 25 million windows covered and 40,000 five star reviews, it's easy to see why. Blinds.com is the top online retailer for custom window treatments. And every order comes with their 100% satisfaction guarantee. So you can shop with confidence. Shop blinds.com's early access 4th of July mega sale right now. Save up to 40% sitewide. Plus get a free professional measure up to 40% [e-mail] rules and restrictions may apply. Alrighty. Meanwhile case number two, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Mahmoud versus Taylor, that parents have the right under the first amendment freedom of religion to opt their kids out from classes, particularly for youngsters, that involve indoctrination into LGBTQ + divided by sign propaganda. The opinion here written by Justice Samuel Alito, again a 63 decision, and basically what he finds here is that parents have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Again, there can be an injunction from the top level from the Supreme Court. A government burdens the religious exercise of parents or when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill. And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents acceptance of such instruction. So this particular case, Montgomery county, small children were being referred to particular books and classes on transgenderism and same sex marriage that were designed to indoctrinate in a set of values. And the opinion quotes from these books. There's one called Prince and Knight, which quote, tells the story of a coming of age prince whose parents wish to match him with a kind and worthy bride. After meeting with many ladies, the prince tells his parents he's looking for something different in a partner by his side. And later, the prince falls into the embrace of a knight after the two finish battling a fearsome dragon. And then the entire kingdom applauds on the two men's wedding day. And then there's another book called Love Violet, which is about a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate Mira. And the girls end up together, of course. And then there's books on transgenderism and all the rest. And basically the board contends that they must teach kids this stuff without telling parents and without giving parents an opt out. That is the idea. The board provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting particular responses to inquiries by parents, according to the opinion. For example, if a parent were to ask whether the school was attempting to teach a child to reject the values taught at home, teachers were encouraged to respond. The quote, teaching about LGBTQ + is not about making students think a certain way. It is to show that there is no one right or normal way to be. But that, of course, is a form of indoctrination, because of course, the left believes that there is a right way to be, which is to be, I'm left wing and religious. Parents believe there's a right way to be, and that is to be religious. You're going to have to pick a set of values. There is no, apolitical when it comes to these sorts of questions. The board rescinded parental opt outs. So more than a thousand parents signed a petition asking the board to restore those opt out rights. And the board was unmoved. Instead, they decided that they basically needed to indoctrinate the kids. And so the court found, no, this is a violation, clearly of parental rights. Parents are not forced to turn their kids over to the state so that those kids can be indoctrinated in left wing social policies. At its heart, says Samuel Alito, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through the performance of religious acts. And for many people of faith across the country, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children. Of course, of course. In light of the record before us as the Court, we hold the board's introduction to the lgbtq, divided by sign inclusive storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and, and to forbid opt outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of their children. That is, of course, exactly right. Naturally, Justice Sotomayor dissents, and she suggests that, well, this, this could mean that you can opt out your kid from teaching about evolution. Well, no. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not laden with values. If you were to suggest that evolution means that human beings are purely animals with no moral obligations, that would be religious indoctrination. Teaching kids the theory of evolution is a different thing. In the same way, if you were to teach public school kids that the law of the land is men can marry men and women can marry women, that would not actually be a violation of religious freedom. It would be a violation of religious freedom if you started talking about the morality of that particular type of relationship. Again, this is something that the, the court makes absolutely clear. Justice Sotomayor, of course, relies on the evolution canard in order to suggest that if you oppose same sex marriage, then you're basically a New Earther and that everything that you're basically a religious fundamentalist, which of course is not remotely the case. You can be anti same sex marriage just based on natural law teaching. Essentially, what the left opposes here in the end, is parents having control of their own kids. As Matt Barnum writes over at the Wall Street Journal, the ruling says parents can generally opt out of instruction that contradicts a child's religious upbringing. It marks another step toward putting parents in charge of determining what their kids are exposed to in school. Eric Baxter, lawyer for The Beckett Fund says public schools are not an instrument of the state to force children into conformity. They serve the needs of the parents. Naturally, left wingers say that this is weaponizing against teachers. Well, teachers are not supposed to be opposed to the agenda of parents. They're supposed to have the same agenda. The whole reason why this has become an issue is because teachers unions and teachers have decided in many cases that they are more important than parents and they get to treat the kids as their laboratory experiments in morality they wish to purvey. Okay, so that is case number two. Very good case. Case number three, another six three decision. This one holds in Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton, that actually the state of Texas can put age restrictions, age verification restrictions on pornography websites. Now, again, it is kind of amazing that this ever had to go to the Supreme Court. Basically, a bunch of libertarians and porn companies said that it was a violation of free speech to suggest that there be a window saying that you have to pledge that you are 18 years old and we have to verify via ID that you're 18 years old before you can access pornography. And Justice Thomas says no, that's, that's ridiculous. He says, to determine whether a law that regulates speech violates the First Amendment, we must consider both the nature of the burden imposed by the law and the nature of the speech at issue. Our precedents distinguish between two types of restrictions on protected speech, content based laws and content neutral laws. Content neutral laws are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny. Not all speech is protected, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. History, tradition and precedent, says Justice Thomas. Recognized states have two distinct powers to address obscenity. They may prescribe outright speech that is obscene to the public at large, and they may prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to children. Now, again, the left wing view of this is that it is a deep and abiding violation of free speech to say that you have to verify the age of people who are accessing pornography online. The importance of President Trump having won in 2016, astonishing, because the court be ruling the opposite way on all of these questions. If Hillary Clinton had been President of the United States starting in January of 2017, okay. Meanwhile, the other big continuing story of politics in the United States, of course, is the impending election of Zoran Mamdani as mayor of New York City. So Zoran Mamdani, he continues to be as radical as it is possible to be. He is sympathetic to jihadism. He is effectively communistic in his approach to the markets. He is in fact racist against white people. And there's no other way to read the agenda that he has spelled out publicly. And of course he's doing all of this as a sort of revolution against Trump. Of course, here is Armandani over the weekend suggesting that he is Trump's worst nightmare.

[Zoran Mamdani]

I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in. And the difference between myself and than Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Donald Trump in D.C. i don't have to pick up the phone from Bill Ackman or Ken Langone. I have to pick up the phone for the more than 20,000 New Yorkers who contributed an average donation of about $80 to break fundraising records and put our campaign in second place.

[Andrew Klavan]

Okay, so that was of course from a little bit earlier in the campaign. Now he's a nominee for the Democratic Party. He was asked by CNN, what are your feelings about capitalism? His answer was I don't like it. Do you like capitalism? No.

[Zoran Mamdani]

I have many critiques of capitalism. And I think ultimately the definition for me of why I call myself a democratic socialist is the words of Dr. King decades ago he said, call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There must be a better distribution of wealth for all of God's children in this country. And that's what I'm focused on, is dignity and taking on income inequality. And for too long politicians have pretended that we're spectators to that crisis of affordability. We're actually actors and, and we have the choice to exacerbate it like Mayor Adams has done, or to respond to it and resolve it like I'm planning to do.

[Andrew Klavan]

He does not like capitalism, you understand, he's in the greatest financial center in the history of the world in New York City and he does not like capitalism. That would seem to be a bit of a warning flag, you might think, especially given the fact he's a career useless person. He's a 33 year old who's never held a solid job a day in his life until he's going to become mayor of the biggest city in the country, a financial center of the West. He grew up in the home of a radical anti colonialist in scare quotes, professor at Columbia University who's sympathetic to every form of radicalism and an Indian American mother who made radical left wing films in Hollywood. That, that is, that is his upbringing. Rich, privileged, as left wing as possible, became a citizen rather late in life and now is Running for mayor of New York on the platform of I hate capitalism and I hate Donald Trump. And also white people are bad. According to the New York Post, New York City mayoral candidate Zor Mamdani wants to hike property taxes for, quote, richer and whiter neighborhoods. It says that in his campaign platform, quote, shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods. And now that's just plain racist and also a violation of the Civil Rights Act. You're not allowed to use the law to discriminate against people on the basis of their race. Obviously. Pretty astonishing that he is saying that sort of stuff out loud. But again, he can say all of this sort of stuff because being a radical with the college educated white liberal base is the feature, not the bug. And there's so many people who are rational who are hearing all this and like, wait a second, how's this guy going to win? The answer is he's going to win because of this. Because the virtue signaling on the left is just that strong. It is that important to be radical. And the omnicause must prevail. They're going to elect a guy who literally said that violence is an artificial construction. Here he was not all that long ago talking about violence while he was promoting defunding of the police.

[Zoran Mamdani]

Oftentimes we've even found as legislators when we go into these courts, the term violent crime is even used when people are stealing pacific packages. Violent crime is even used when people are accused of burglary and there happens to be a housing unit in that same dwelling. So violence is an artificial construction. And we have to be very clear that what is happening here with these district attorneys, that is violence. That is violence of the highest degree.

[Andrew Klavan]

Violence is an artificial construction. You see, when somebody does something violent or when they break in or when they burglarize your home, that's nonviolent. It's an artificial construction. Well, this is leading the cops to say every cop in the city is going to leave. According to the New York Post, a New York City led by Zoran Montani will mean a true pronged, a two pronged breakdown of public safety, crime spiraling out of control and NYPD officers leaving en masse. According to experts and veteran cops, they believe the U turn during the final weeks of his primary campaign away from defunding the police was just a craven political move to score votes with undecided voters. Scott Monroe, president of the NYPD Detectives Endowment association, said, quote, the city would be totally unsafe for people who live here. I go to bed and worry about the phone ringing. I'm worried about my members getting killed. I don't want to plan any funerals. He added, if you put a guy like him in there, our people are going to get hurt. Nobody's going to want the job. It's going to put recruitment back five more steps. NYPD brass are quietly bracing for a potential mass exodus. I've had guys call me and say if he wins, I'm quitting, a police source said of Mamdani. It's just weird that New York City would vote for him. I know he's not here for the police. Well, no, he's not. He's there for the radicalism. He's there for the radicalism. And that's demonstrated by how he was getting his support, which was partially out of the state of New York, largely from groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations. He's receiving support from, apparently Linda Sarsour, terrorist supporter, according to justthenews.com Jerry Dunleavy writing Zoramdani's relationship with Sarsour went largely unremarked during the primary race for City hall, even though he campaigned alongside her and she called him her friend. Apparently he embraced a nearly decade long association with Sarsour as he rose from activist to New York State Assemblyman and now the Democrat Party's nominee to run America's largest city. Their views on the Jewish state, law enforcement and far left policies have been closely aligned. Literally the day after October 7th he tweeted Peace can only begin by ending the occupation and dismantling apartheid and condemned Israel on October 8th. That is who he is. He is a radical and the radicalism is is the thing that people like about him. In New York City by October 13th he was saying that Israel is, quote, on the brink of genocide. And he was arrested while protesting Israel, not Hamas, of course. And now he's pledging that if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes to New York, he will try to arrest him. He co founded the Bowdoin College chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that instructed its chapters on October 8th to celebrate a historic win for the Palestinian resistance, he expressed his love for the Holy Land. 5 those were the leaders of the Holy Land foundation convicted in 2008 for fundraising for Hamas. Again, not a shock. His dad compares Israel to the Nazis. Both of his parents have sided with the Columbia protest encampment, of course, and naturally this means that Mamzani has earned at least a hat Tip from the horseshoe theory. Right. They say they don't agree with his policies, but they do like that he hates Israel.

[Michael Knowles]

Is it because people are so desperate for government run grocery stores or love socialism or love foreign born midwits running their cities? Probably not. That guy was the only person in the New York City mayor's debate to say he wanted to focus on New York City. All the candidates were asked, if you could visit a foreign country, what would it be? And they of course all had an answer. I think most said Israel.

[Andrew Klavan]

Great.

[Michael Knowles]

And he said, I wouldn't go anywhere, I'd stay in New York. And like if I want to meet Jewish constituents, I go to their synagogues, their homes or whatever, but I'd be here in New York because that's what I'm doing. I'm running New York. That's my job.

[Katie Britt]

Well, he gave the right answer.

[Michael Knowles]

He gave the right answer. He gave the right answer at least. And he's talking. I totally oppose his program.

[Andrew Klavan]

Just absolutely.

[Michael Knowles]

I think it works. But he's talking about economics.

[Andrew Klavan]

Yep.

[Michael Knowles]

And everyone else is talking about foreign policy. Why is it hard to talk about economics? Domestic economics?

[Katie Britt]

I don't know. Apparently they don't know how to fix it.

[Andrew Klavan]

Unbelievable. Ok, again, saying that you oppose his agenda and then praising him for talking about economics as a communist is pretty incredible. But again, the horseshoe theory there is all about the fact that Mamdani hates Israel. And so of course do some of the people that you just saw on your screen, which is why they've been expressing so much support for all of the opponents of Israel that they can find on their shows. And that's kind of an amazing horseshoe theory thing happening right there. Because that's not actually what Mamdani said. If you actually go back and watch the debate, he didn't say, I don't want to focus on the Middle East, I just want to focus on what's happening here. He literally said he believes in the disestablishment of Israel as a Jewish state. That's what he actually said during the debate. So that's a complete mischaracterization in order to defend Mamdani, because Mamdani is of course a rabid Jew hair, a full scale anti Semite who supports terrorism. Okay. And, and this does say something about the radical left, the anti Americanism, the anti capitalism, the anti Israel, the anti Jewish of it. They are all linked. They are all of a piece. It is all about destroying systems that are successful. It's all about that. It's by the Way also linked to anti Christianity. All of these things are of a piece. The Omni cause exists because of its Omni opponent. And the Omni opponent is the system. Capitalism, free markets, private property, free speech, strong foreign policy in the face of nefarious and evil enemies. Traditional values like church or synagogue. Right? Those are the things these people oppose. And you saw them in living color in Glastonbury over the weekend. So Glastonbury is apparently a giant music festival that happens in the uk broadcast on the BBC. And at this gigantic music festival in Glastonbury, there was a person that I had never heard of, who you also probably have never heard of, calls himself Bob Villain. Right, as opposed to Bob Dylan. And. And this person got up in advance of a band called Kneecap, which has of course gone out and campaigned against Israel and talked about how evil Israel is. And he decided that he was just going to call for the death of IDF soldiers. And also he was going to shout about how the west should essentially fall. Here's what he had to say. Shouting at a gigantic crowd of people flying flags for Palestinians, terrorist groups and all the rest. These are the people the west has imported and then trained their own children to follow. Good job, West. Excellent job.

[Ben Shapiro]

We've done it all, all right? From working in bars to working Zionists.

[Andrew Klavan]

And if we can do this, I.

[Ben Shapiro]

Promise you, you can do absolutely anything that you put your mind mind to. I'm telling you this.

[Andrew Klavan]

Free, free, free, free, free, free.

[Ben Shapiro]

All right, but have you heard this one, though? Death, death to the idf. De.

[Andrew Klavan]

De. This was broadcast on the BBC.

[Ben Shapiro]

Death, death to the idf.

[Andrew Klavan]

De.

[Ben Shapiro]

Hell yeah. From the river to the sea Palestine must be.

[Andrew Klavan]

Will be.

[Ben Shapiro]

Inshallah, it will be free.

[Andrew Klavan]

So just going to point out, Hamas is not going to attack that music festival. Not like the Nova Music Festival, because all of the Hamas stands are in the crowd at this one. Maybe Hamas is attending. They found some of their. Their favorite bands. This was broadcast in living color on the BBC, by the way. It wasn't just that this human piece of drek suggested that death to the idf. He also ran around the stage shouting, quote, I heard you want your country back. Shut the up.

[Ben Shapiro]

Shut up.

[Andrew Klavan]

Okay? That's what he said on the stage there. So, first of all, great ad for Nigel Farage's Reform Party, which says, get all of these people out of our country. Great ad for them. But this is indicative of a rise in not only. It's all the things. It is hatred for the West. It is hatred for the civilization that has granted them all of their power, all of their economic might, all of their privileges, all of their free speech. Right. And that of course is combined with the reason why they hate Israel. They don't hate Israel just because it's filled with Jews. Of course that's one reason they also hate Israel, because Israel, they believe is an extension of the quote unquote colonialist West. That is the real reason they hate Israel. So again, disgusting and vile, but indicative of a new left wing base that exists across the political boundaries that separate so many of our countries, but unites the left wing base. And so what does this say? Well, it says that something ugly is coming. Something very ugly is coming. When you look at Zaramdani and I was spending the weekend doing some reading and one of the books that I've been reading, I usually read several books at a time, is a memoir, famous memoir by a writer named Stefan Zweig, who's the author of a wide variety of books, some of them made into movies. He wrote a book called the World of Yesterday, talking about growing up in the Austro Hungarian Empire, then living through two world wars and what it was like. And he has a section that really struck me, thinking about New York City, thinking about London, the major cities of the west these days. It really struck me he was talking about Carl Luger. Now, for those who don't know their World War II history, Carl Luger pre existed World War II by 40 years. Carl Luger was elected mayor of Vienna on an openly anti Semitic platform. And Stefan Zweig was a resident of Vienna at the time. And he talks about how Vienna was a cosmopolitan city where people from all walks of life would go, they would enjoy, everybody had equal rights and it all existed under the stability of the Austro Hungarian Empire. And then things started to fall apart. Carl Luger was elected in 1897 to become mayor of Vienna on an openly anti Semitic platform. The reason he's an important historic figure is not because he was mayor of Vienna. The reason he's an important figure is because there was a young person living in Vienna at the time. His name was Adolf Hitler. And Adolf Hitler was a big admirer of Carl Luger. He saw his success and he decided he was going to emulate that success. And so Stefan Zweig talks about this now, writing retrospectively in 1942, he writes this quote, the large department stores in mass production were the ruin of the bourgeois and the small employers and manufacturers by hand. An able and popular leader was Dr. Carl Luger, who mastered this unrest and worry. And with the slogan the little man must be helped carried with him the entire small bourgeois and disgruntled middle class, whose envy of the wealthy was markedly less than the fear of sinking from its bourgeois status into the proletariat. It was exactly the same worried group which Adolf Hitler later collected around him as his first substantial following. Karl Luger was also his prototype in another sense, in that he taught him the usefulness of the anti Semitic catchword, which put an opponent before the eyes of the broad classes of the bourgeois and at the same time imperceptibly diverted their hatred from the great landed gentry and the feudal wealthy class. The entire vulgarization and brutalization of present day politics, the horrible decline of our century, is demonstrated in the comparison of these two figures, Adolf Hitler and Luger. Karl Luger, with his soft blonde beard, was an imposing person. Dershon Karl, the Viennese, called him the handsome Karl. He had been academically educated in an age that that placed intellectual culture overall, else he had not gone to school in vain. He could speak in a way that appealed to the people. He was vehement and witty. But even in the most heated speeches, or at least those that were thought to be heated at that time, whenever he never overstepped the bounds of decency. His striker, Julius Striker, was the publicist for Hitler. A certain mechanic named Schneider, who operated with legends of ritual murder and similar similar vulgarities, was carefully held in check. Luger was modest and above reproach in his private life. He always maintained a certain chivalry toward his opponents. When his movement had finally captured the Viennese town council and he, after Emperor Francis Joseph, who detested the anti Semitic tendency, had twice refused to sanction it, was appointed burgomaster. His city administration remained perfectly just and even typically democratic. Okay. He was accompanied at the time by the rise of another party called the Christian Social Party in Vienna, which was anchored in the industrial centers and it made up for its unimportance by wild aggression and unbridled brutality. They dominated the university hall. They engaged in actual violence attacks. The police, who, because of the ancient privilege accorded to the university, were not allowed to enter the hall, had to look on inactively from without and see how these cowardly ruffians worked havoc and could do no more than carry off the wounded who were thrown bleeding down the steps into the street by these nationalist rowdies. So great was the abhorrence of the tragically weak and touchingly humane era for any violent tumult or the shedding of blood. The government retired in the face of the German national terror. So these two forces is what Stefan Zweig is talking about in his. In his memoirs, the force of Carl Luger, genteel, anti Semitic, playing on a feeling of the quote unquote, economically dispossessed, who aren't quite poor. So lower middle class people, highly educated, who are seeking someone to blame. And so the anti Semitism was a feature, not a bug. And the German National Party, which invaded the universities and did violence. Does this sound familiar at all? And a state that was unwilling to do anything about it, that sat aside in the name of gentility and civility. Does that sound like anything now? Again, that doesn't mean that we're existing in 1897 Vienna. What it does mean is that when you look at what happened in Glastonbury, again in the uk, which is a country that prosecutes people for tweets that they find inappropriate, and yet they have thousands of people chanting in unison, you want your country back? Shut the F up. And also, death. Death to the idf. A call for murder of Israeli soldiers in solidarity with actual terrorists. If that is the future of the west, then the west is screwed in a massive, massive way. Now, again, what's amazing about all of this is that we are now living in an era where the west should be in its ascendancy if it did not have to deal with this fifth column of people who hate their civilization. The scavengers, I've called them, this coalition of scavengers. Right now, the west is in its ascendancy, not in its decline. Over the weekend, President Trump championed a peace deal that he has now cut between Congo and Rwanda. Apparently, a peace agreement brokered by the White House to stem the bloodshed in Congo, where a militia allegedly backed by Rwanda occupies vast swaths of land, was signed in Washington, D.C. on Friday by officials of those two African nations. Here is President Trump explaining that he is brokering peace throughout the world.

[Donald Trump]

This is a tremendous breakthrough. In a few short months, we've now achieved peace between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, and the DRC and Rwanda and a couple of others. Also, Serbia, you know, was they were getting ready to go to war with a group I won't even mention because it didn't happen. We were able to stop it.

[Andrew Klavan]

So again, he. He's right about that. He also continues to maintain his strength in the face of a. A, an Iran that pledges nuclear development. He says to Ayatollah Khamenei, listen, you keep lying and saying that, that you won. You didn't you got. You got your ass kicked.

[Donald Trump]

I'm putting out a little statement. I'm going to respond to the Ayatollah's statement yesterday that we won the war. Won the war. And I said, look, you're a man of great faith, man who's highly respected in this country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell. And Israel was beat up too. They were both, both beat up. And it was a great time to end it. It was quick. They got the hate out. A lot of hate. A lot of hate. It would be great if they didn't have that hate. But the last thing they're thinking about is nuclear weapons right now.

[Andrew Klavan]

He is right about that. And then he adds, listen, if they start developing nuclear weapons, we'll bomb them again if we have to. Would you consider bombing the country again?

[Donald Trump]

Without question, absolutely.

[Ben Shapiro]

Have you had any?

[Donald Trump]

It turned out to be unbelievable. But you know, our incredible fliers and our. I call them the shots. These guys are unbelievable. Think from 52,000ft they hit the equivalent of a refrigerator door. They actually hit it right in the center. So it's much smaller than that.

[Andrew Klavan]

So again, he's right about all of this. At a time when the west should be resurgent and on the upswing, instead you do have America's major cities, New York City, Louisiana, Chicago, being run by full scale left wing nutcases who are deeply ensconced with hatred for their own civilization. Same thing has happened in London. Same thing's happening in the uk. It's been happening in France as well. It's a serious threat to the West. The biggest threat to the west is not external at this point. The biggest threat to the west is internal. The, the Red Green alliance, the communist socialists and the Hamas next coming together in hatred of their own civilization. Which ties into July 4th. July 4th is coming up. It's gonna be great. I hope you're gonna have a wonderful Independence Day celebrating the foundation of the greatest country in the history of the world. And we should talk about a myth that has been purveyed about July 4th and about the United States in general. This, of course, is the 1619 myth that America was founded on slavery and that the Revolutionary War was fought for the preservation of slavery. There are so many lies that are told about our civilization, particularly about the foundation of our civilization in order to somehow claim that our civilization should therefore be be torn down. If you were to poll the morons at Glastonbury or the Democratic primary voters, Razor Mamdani, about What they think of the United States, they would surely agree with the myth that America was founded on slavery, and it's not true. So first of all, let's take a moment to debunk this myth. A huge number of the founders overtly opposed slavery in principle. Even those who are hypocrites and held slaves themselves did not provide significant defenses of slavery. That included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington said, quote, there's not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for its abolition. Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the declaration of independence called the slave trade an execrable commerce and an affront against human nature itself. John jay said, it is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. To contend for our own liberty and to deny that blessing to others involves an inconsistency not to be excused. Of course, Benjamin franklin, James Madison, John Adams very passionately, and Alexander Hamilton spoke against slavery as well. Now, why was slavery included in the constitution of the United states? Originally, the answer was because there were still slaveholding states in the United states. Many of the northern states were not slaveholding states, but the southern states were. And the question was, was could you get together a coalition to defeat the British or could you not? And this was not a fight on behalf of promoting slavery. Slavery remained legal in the British Empire until 1833. So this was not a fight in which one side was pro slavery and one side was anti slavery. Far from it. The leaders in America ideologically were not in favor of slavery. There was a practical on the ground consideration, which was that many of the southern states were reliant on slave labor. Again, that's an evil, not to be excused. But to claim that the revolutionary war was about slavery is to be ignorant of history. And in fact, as soon as the revolution began, there were eight states that immediately came out and started abolishing slavery. Vermont, 1777. Pennsylvania, 1780. Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783. Rhode island and Connecticut, 1784. New York, 1799. New Jersey, 1804. As Arthur Millick of the heritage foundation points out, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution says the congress could prohibit the importation of slaves starting in 1808. The goal was to phase slavery out on the continent. On the first day that clause was operative, Congress passed, and president Thomas Jefferson, famous slaveholder, signed that prohibition into law. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance was passed, which outlawed slavery in the northwest territories. Seven years later, Congress made it illegal to build ships for the purpose of the slave trade. It's important to debunk some of these myths because those myths are then the basis for claiming that the west is uniquely evil. Slavery is a virtually universal human institution that is in fact evil, but was also universal. The question isn't whether the Founding Fathers were hypocrites about slavery. Some were, some weren't. The question is why did it take the west to end slavery? In fact, slavery is still practiced in many of the areas that are favorites of the Glastonbury crowd. Many of the places that they are claiming are are havens of of freedom that require less of a heavy western hand are places that are still running slavery. A huge amount of the Middle east still engages in slavery, not Israel by many of its opponents. This is the point here. July 4th spells a a clarion call for human freedom and it has been seen that way by right minded people ever since. Is why the very famous Frederick Douglas speech about what is 4th of July to the slave it doesn't say that the fourth of July is bad. It says that the problem with the fourth of July is that the principles that the Founding Fathers sought to instill had not yet been realized. That is the right approach, a historically accurate and mature approach as opposed to this leftist scumbag wing that simply suggests the west is uniquely evil, when in reality the west is uniquely good. Alrighty. Coming up, we'll get to the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. The United States Navy has now renamed a Navy ship a It's no longer the USS Harvey Milk. We'll get to that in a moment. First, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro Checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.

[Katie Britt]

This episode is brought to you by Huggies Little Movers. It's fun having a baby that loves to move, but it can be challenging to find a diaper that can keep up with them. Huggies Little Movers is designed to move with your baby with either the double grip strips or the new HugFit 360 degree waistband.

[Andrew Klavan]

You can be confident rel relying on.

[Katie Britt]

Huggies Little Movers for your active little ones. Huggies Little Movers made with double grip.

[Andrew Klavan]

Strips or the new HugFit 360 degree.

[Katie Britt]

Waistband so your little double can keep moving like you Huggies. We got you baby.