Unidentified Male Commentator 1 (4:07)

Now, when this decision came out earlier today, it's an unacceptable decision, but not an unexpected decision, because this isn't even really the Roberts court. It's the Trump court.

Unidentified Female Commentator (4:25)

Yes.

Unidentified Male Commentator 1 (4:26)

And what we would expect from the Trump court is an effort to continue their scheme to suppress the vote and rig the midterm elections. And Beyond.

Ben Shapiro (4:38)

Okay, this is ridiculous. And Democrats are going nuts. See, here's the thing. Democrats think that Americans, by and large, are racist, that white Americans are racist. So the government must force white Americans not to be racist by creating racist districts. Get it? I didn't think so. Basically, they are arguing that if you don't want the government discriminating on the basis of race, you are the real racist. In fact, you must draw congressional districts that are majority minority. You have to do it, or you're doing Jim Crow 2.0. This is what Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, was saying just yesterday. This is somehow a return to Jim Crow. Again, they are saying that if you don't create a congressional district based on race, that's Jim Crow. If you don't create a segregated district, that's Jim Crow.

Unidentified Male Commentator 2 (5:24)

And today we're ramping up our efforts. We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision, which was a despicable decision, that is a return to Jim Crow, taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying for the right to vote, to prevent racial discrimination. In the right to vote. We see what they're doing in the SAVE act, which would disenfranchise 20 million people. And we are fighting that every step of the way.

Ben Shapiro (5:57)

Honestly, this is conspiratorial nonsense. The idea that white people are trying to stop black people from voting in the United States is ridiculous. First of all, take Virginia, for example. The white candidate, Abigail Spanberger, won 90% of the black vote. The black candidate win some. Sears won 90% of the White vote. So it turns out the American people not nearly as racist as Chuck Schumer wishes they were. So he tweeted out, this decision upends half a century of precedent, defies the spirit of the American civil rights movement, and reverses generations of progress toward racial justice. And it shows that Democrats hold 24 seats in a variety of Southern states. And after redistricting, Republicans will gain 12 more seats. And then he added, by some estimates, this decision could lead conservative state legislatures to draw as many as 19 additional seats that favor Republicans in the House. Okay, that is telling on himself. The reason he's upset is not because he believes that black people are discriminated against. It's because black people are disproportionately Democratic voters. And he believes that Democratic seats are going to disappear. That's called normal gerrymandering. Now, again, gerrymandering has been a part of our process since the very beginning. There is truly no Great substitute for gerrymandering, political gerrymandering, where the state legislature or state commission or another body draws the district within a state. And there's nothing wrong with that. This is why I wasn't complaining when California decided to redistrict. Texas just did it. Florida's going to redo it or just did. And this is the way that states work. And there's nothing illegal about. May be a bad thing, but there is no alternative to it. Every alternative that has been tried is a giant fail. But according to the Democrats, if you are not drawing specific black districts, Right, they're the ones who want to take race into account. If you are not drawing specific black districts, this means you are a racist. And again, Democrats are just telling on themselves. They believe that government must discriminate on the basis of race to stop those racist Americans. This is their baseline belief system. Americans are racist, just as racist as they were in 1964. And therefore, we. We must have government promoted policies that benefit black people at the expense of other people. This is why Hakeem Jeffries yesterday was suggesting that affirmative action, equity, inclusion, and also racial tolerance are all gone. Those are not the same thing. Racial tolerance is very, very high in the United States, which is why you don't need specific government policy in order to promote black people over the racism of white people. Here's Hakeem Jeffries.

Unidentified Male Commentator 1 (8:27)

In the aftermath of the 2008 election, they've tried to do everything that they can to eliminate and erase our journey, our struggle, our march in this country toward a more perfect union. And now we're at a point where affirmative action is gone, diversity is gone, equity, gone, inclusion, gone. Racial tolerance, gone. The Voting Rights act, largely gone. But guess what, extremists? We're still here, and we're not going anywhere.

Ben Shapiro (9:05)

Okay? By the way, by the way, the fact that black Democrats are still there demonstrates that America is not, in fact, particularly racist. Actually, there's something like 26 majority black districts in the United States. 24 of them are represented by a black person in those districts as their elected representative. But they're well over 60 black representatives in Congress, which means a lot of white people are voting for a lot of black candidates. I mean, that. That does not bespeak tremendous American racism. Barack Obama, of course, a beneficiary of the white vote. He comes out and he says, quote, today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities so long as they do it under the guise of partisanship rather than explicit racial bias. And as we'll explain in just a second, he's lying. Basically, what the Supreme Court ruled is that you can do normal partisan gerrymandering. You just can't decide that you're going to hurt black people because they are black. Obama says this serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is such setbacks can be overcome, but that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers. Now again, his tweet is self defeating. If it turns out black citizens can mobilize and vote in record numbers, you do not have systemic barriers to voting in the United States, do you? Which is what the VRA was designed to stop the Voting Rights Act. All right, coming up, Kamala Harris sounds off on the Supreme Court ruling. Plus Candace Owens getting slapped down by Erica Kirk. And we get to Graham Platner. That's the Nazi tattoo guy being embraced by the Democratic Party. A lot to come first. Let's just be honest for a second. Paying 70, 80, 90 bucks a month for wireless? That is absurd. It doesn't make any sense. It's bloated pricing from companies that assume you're not gonna bother to look elsewhere. Meanwhile, my wireless company, PureTalk is offering unlimited high speed data for just $34.99 a month. That's not a gimmick. That's the actual here's what makes things really interesting. That same unlimited plan used to start at 55 bucks. But PureTalk keeps pushing in the opposite direction of the big carriers. They are trying to give you more value, not less. So now it's 34. 99. If you check them out before and past check again. The math has now changed. Again, I'm a longtime Pure Talk user. Their coverage is excellent. Call clarity is great. They're using the same tower networks as the big guys. If you're skeptical, totally fair. Just try it. You get 30 days. No contract, no cancellation fees. You're not locked in, you're not gambling. You're just testing a better option. Switching takes about 10 minutes and if something goes wrong, you're talking to a US based customer service team that actually picks up the phone and helps you. So here's the deal. Head over to PureTalk.com Shapiro. Get unlimited high speed data for $34.99 a month. That's PureTalk.com Shapiro. Stop overpaying. Switch to PureTalk, America's wireless company today. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris. Again, there is a conspiracy theory on the right that suggests that voter fraud is deciding our elections, that there are millions of people who are voting fraudulently, which is not true. And there is a similar countervailing conspiracy theory on the left that vast voter suppression is happening in the United States. And that is also not true. In fact, in several elections in the recent past, the black turnout rate was higher than the comparative white turnout rate. But here is Kamala Harris doing this routine also. Again, everyone's a victim.

Unidentified Female Commentator (12:31)

No, they have had an agenda that has been in place for decades to get to this very moment and beyond, which is to make it so difficult for the people to vote that they won't because they know the people are not stupid. And see the corrupt, incompetent, callous administration that is in the White House right now. And they're so damn scared. They're so damn scared of losing the midterm.

Ben Shapiro (13:09)

And by the way, we should mention that the biggest beneficiary of racialized voting in the United States was and is Kamala Harris. Right now, Kamala Harris is the most likely candidate to win the Democratic nomination. Why? I mean, she just lost to Donald Trump. She's a terrible candidate. Why? The answer is, as everyone knows, that she is going to wildly outperform with black voters in South Carolina. That is racialized voting. That is what it is. I mean, she does this routine where she kind of goes into a particular way of speaking, she's kind of cosplaying, and then she'll drop out of it. Here we go.

Unidentified Female Commentator (13:39)

I'm a black woman in America. So I mean, you know, I mean, some people are just like, oh, but you're a congresswoman. I'm a black woman first. And so, you know the level of disrespect that is committed to continuously lobbed against us as black women. You know, for me, I'm like, wait a minute now. I am One of the 535 most powerful people in this country. And for some reason you think we on the same level, but you gonna disrespect me like, it's not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen.

Ben Shapiro (14:15)

So, okay, she is not lacking respect because she's a black woman. She's lacking respect cause she was a terrible candidate. I should point out at this point, that her district in Texas was only 40% black and she ended up as a representative anyway. And actually, when she was running for Senate, she won 45% of the predominantly white counties. So clearly, America is deeply racist. Rashida Tlaib, again, another demonstration of how terribly racist America is, that we can have a terrorist stand like Rashida Tlaib in Congress. She wants to expand the court and impeach the justices. You know, Governor J.B. pritzker, he's saying that Republicans are incapable of winning majority, so they're making it harder to vote. The Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act. I'll just say it. Donald Trump and Republicans can't win majorities at the ballot box this November, so they're going back to a playbook as old as this country, making it harder for black and brown Americans to vote on every front. Trump and his allies are assaulting the institutions of our democracy. Enough is enough. Okay, so what exactly did the Supreme Court do here that is totally setting off the Democrats? Why are they going so insane? Why are they going so nuts? Okay, in order to understand what was the actual case here, there was a redistricting that was forced by a court in Louisiana. And that redistricting is insane. So I wanna show you some maps. Okay. The first map here was the original map of Louisiana's district. Okay. This is the map of Louisiana's districts. And what you see here is that there were six congressional districts here in Louisiana. And what you have is a first district that is. That is sort of disparate. And a second district that is sort of disparate. A sixth that is somewhat more cohesive. A third that is cohesive. A fourth and a fifth that are somewhat cohesive. Right. That's what you're looking at. When, when you look at this, this map, you have a sort of salamander like majority black district that'd be the second congressional district in Louisiana. That was Louisiana's map from 2013 to 2022. Then a court ruled that they couldn't use that map, so they drew another map. And that map, again, the congressional districts look pretty cohesive, what you have there. And again, the, the way that the congressional districts are split in Louisiana is fairly even. The Louisiana districts are not. It's not like all six districts are represented by Republicans. That's not the way that it works. But even if it were to work that way, that would be a partisan gerrymandering. Now we get to the actual map. This is the map that was mandated by the court. Okay. The map that was mandated by the court is totally crazy, because here you have a congressional district that stretches all the way from New Orleans to shreveport, which like 150 miles away, it spans basically the entire width of the state. The district looks ridiculous and crazy. It's not cohesive at all. It carves all the way through the heart of the state, like through the middle of the state, in order to unite black populations in places that are 100 miles apart. And they did that because the court said, you must have a second majority black district, so you must discriminate. Hey. So some white voters sued and they said this violates the Equal Protection Clause. Right. The equal Protection clause says you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. And the Supreme Court said that's right. You're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. If you draw a district just to get black voters in it, you can't do that. And the defense against that was no. No, the Voting Rights act says that you must do that in order so that you're not watering down black votes. So There were basically three interlinked questions here in this particular case. First, did that 2024 congressional map violate the Equal Protection Clause as a racial gerrymander? And the court found yes. Second, can compliance with Section two of the Voting Rights act be a compelling interest that justified intentional race based redistricting? And the answer is yes, but only very narrowly. So Section two has to be very narrowly applied. Like when there's intent to draw a congressional map to harm black people, and that's the open intent of the thing, then you can invoke Section 2. When does Section 2 require redistricting? Only when circumstances create a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. So, so Justice Alito is writing. He was joined by all the conservative justices. Kagan dissented, and she was joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. So again, just to go through the decision, the 15th Amendment provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And Section 2 of the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce that amendment. Okay, so the 1965 Voting Rights act comes about, and there are a couple of sections that theoretically implicate redistricting and how districts are drawn. One is Section 5. So Section 5 originally had rules about what was called pre clearance. If you are in a historically discriminatory part of the United States, the Jim Crow part of the United States, you actually had to pre clear your maps with the federal government in order to show that you weren't discriminating. And in 2013, in a case called Shelby county versus Holder, the Supreme Court found, hey, look at the calendar. It's now 2013. It's. It is no longer 1965. And therefore, many of the qualifications that were being used to say which parts of the United States had to engage in preclearance, they were no longer appropriate. And so Section 5 preclearance was no longer forced. Now, what you will notice is that in the aftermath of section 5 going away, there were still a lot of black representatives in the United States from the South. Right. That map that Chuck Schumer was showing earlier of the map of congressional districts in 2024 showed a lot of Democrat political districts in the South. That was after section 5 of the VRA was basically ruled to be non applicable. Okay, so now there is an attempt to invoke Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. So Section 2 of the Voting Rights act says, no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision to deny or abridge the the right of the United States to vote on accounts of race or color. So as you may notice, there's nothing in there about redistricting.

Unidentified Male Commentator 1 (20:43)

Right.

Ben Shapiro (20:43)

What that's really talking about mostly is things like poll taxes or literacy tests or things that are designed to get black people not to vote. And again, the Voting Rights act was necessary because from the end of the Civil War to basically the Civil Rights revolution of the 60s, there were heavy attempts by various Jim Crow states to stop black people from. From activating politically. And that included discriminatory tests designed to stop black people from voting. That's why the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act were passed. And so that set up some elements of the law in both the Civil Rights act and the Voting Rights act that would seem to be facially violative of the Constitution of the United States. It's a point Christopher Caldwell has made convincingly, in my view, that there are elements, for example, of the Civil Rights act that pretty clearly discriminate against private business owners, for example, in a way that would be unconstitutional. But the CRA basically overrules that and the VRA gets involved in what normally would be state matters in order to enforce the 15th amendment. So how about redistricting? So there is a case called Gingells from 1986 which set out a four part test to prove vote dilution. So vote dilution is the idea that the Voting Rights act can stop redistricting that dilutes the black vote. So the example that Elena Kagan uses is let's say that you have a circle shaped black population in terms of its sort of demographic location inside a square sized state. So you have the circle and then you have the square. Okay. And inside that black circle, you would have a group of people voting for a particular candidate. And so what the state does in order to water down the black vote is they say, we don't want black people to have that much autonomy. So we are just going to carve the state into four separate parts and we are going to dilute the black vote so that 25% of each part of that circle goes into a broader square. Right. That would be vote dilution. Well, according to the Gingell's precedent, you have to show that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact and politically cohesive and that that's why it's being divided. It must also demonstrate the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to defeat the minority's preferred candidate and that the process based on the totality of the circumstances is not equally open to minority voters. Okay, well, those factors are not actually present in this particular case in Louisiana. First of all, the district that is being drawn again stretches like 150 miles. It is certainly not geographically compact and politically cohesive. And if the idea is that just because black voters vote disproportionately Democrat and white voters in Louisiana vote disproportionately Republican, that you must Therefore draw District 4 Democrats or you're racist. No, that is just called political districting. So Justice Alito wrote the opinion of the court. He says Section 2 of the VRA was designed to enforce the Constitution, not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court's Section 2 precedents in a way that forces states to engage in the very race based discrimination the Constitution forbids.

Unidentified Male Commentator 2 (23:49)

Right.

Ben Shapiro (23:50)

He's saying here is that sometimes a court will force you to draw a black majority district which is in fact racist and violative of the Equal Rights Amendment of the Constitution, 15th Amendment right that you, you are. If the court is forcing you to draw a majority black district that is in fact racist and that violates the Constitution. So the Court held that Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the state intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race. When a state defends a districting scheme on the ground it was drawn for partisan purposes. Plaintiffs have a special burden to overcome. To prevail, the plaintiff must disentangle race from politics by proving that the former drove a district's lines. So in other words, if you draw districts because you want to maintain Mike Johnson's district in Louisiana, that's fine. And if it turns out that maintaining that district meant a not majority black district, okay, that's normal. That's how politics works. And again, one of the things that Alito points out is that the calendar says 2026, not 1966, quote. Vast social change has occurred throughout the country, and particularly in the south, where many Section 2 suits arise. the time of the act passage, the nation had faced nearly a century of entrenched racial discrimination in voting, an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. So things have changed. Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the most five of the five most recent presidential elections nationwide. And in Louisiana also, a full blown two party system has emerged in the states where section two suits are the most common. Gingels arose the original Supreme Court case we mentioned in the context of a one party system in which black and white voters had starkly different voting patterns despite their affiliation within the same party. In the area involved in gingles, an overwhelming majority of white voters did not vote for any black candidate in the Democratic party primary elections, which for all practical purposes selected the candidates who would ultimately obtain office. And in the general, white voters in heavily Democratic areas often ranked black candidates last among Democrats. Such intraparty disparities showed black voters had less opportunity to elect their preferred candidate because of race, not because of partisanship. So you're saying those were intra Democratic fights. Okay, so the majority decision says that basically section two has become obviated by racial progress in the United States. Justice Thomas, being the most strict constructionist on the bench, says basically section two of the Voting Rights act should not have applied to districting at all. He says, as I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that Section 2 of the Voting Rights act does not regulate districting at all. The relevant text prohibits states from imposing or implying a voting qualification prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure in a manner that results in denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race. This does not include a state's choice of one districting scheme over another. Okay, so Elena Kagan, in her dissent, she says, no, no, no, this is racism. And she says, this part's pretty funny, actually. She says in the states where that law continues to matter, the states still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. Now, I'd just like to point out at this point that if you're talking about residential segregation, it turns out that actually, actually some of the most segregated parts of the United States are in areas that Elena Kagan would leave alone under the vra. Here is a map from the left wing Brookings Institute. Brookings is a liberal institution of the most and least segregated areas in the United States. Areas of low segregation are predominantly located in the Southwest and in places like Texas and some of the rest of the south, some of the places that have the highest levels of segregation are, are the Northeast and the Rust Belt, which are presumably not the areas that Elena Kagan thinks are racist. In fact, according to William Fry, demographer at Brookings, the most segregated city in the US Is Milwaukee. The next most segregated, New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. The most segregated city, by the way, between whites and Hispanics is, wait for it, Los Angeles. So what's actually happening here is the Democrats, as per their usual arrangement, are trying to claim that normal politics is racism. And what they're really upset about, of course, is that more and more people are moving to the south, which means more Southern Congressional districts, which means more Republicans. Here is a map of projected 2030 congressional reapportionment. This is based on population trajectory. And what you see is massive gains in the South. You see Texas picking up another four seats and Florida picking up another three. You can see North Carolina picking up another two. The Southwest picks up some. California loses four. The areas that are bleeding votes are the Democrat areas. The places that are gaining votes are the Republican areas. So total numbers, red states are likely to gain eight to 10 congressional seats by 2030. That also, by the way, means another 10 electoral votes in the presidential election. So what's actually happening here, as per our usual arrangement, is Democrats are claiming that them losing politically is America being racist or the Supreme Court being racist. And they insist that we impose actual racist top down policy in order to protect them politically. That's what's actually happening here. Now what's really amazing here is that President Trump, who again has been widely derided by the left, remember Trump is trying to do Jim Crow 2.0 according to the Democrats. Well, it turns out that Trump's approval rating among black Americans is actually at an all time high. Doesn't mean that he has 40%, but these numbers are pretty astounding.

Unidentified Male Commentator 3 (29:44)

I think what we're seeing right now in the numbers is President Trump and the Republican Party are chipping away at the long term advantage that Democrats have had with black voters, with African Americans. You can see it right here. Look, Trump's approval among African Americans at this point. In term one, he was at 12%. You know, he's been losing ground with a lot of people. He's gaining. He's gaining ground with African Americans. He's up to 16% at this point. And you say this isn't that big of a shift, But I will tell you, Republicans absolutely love this shift that's going on because Democrats have had such a long term advantage. The fact that he's actually gaining ground versus where he was in term number one, this has major implications.

Ben Shapiro (30:25)

So it turns out Democrats shouting racist, racist over and over and over is not actually winning over additional black voters. It's alienating some black voters. That is not a shock. Representative Wesley Hunt of Texas, a Republican, he was asked about the supposedly racist Supreme Court hearing. He's like, listen, I'm not here because I'm black. I'm here because I'm good. Which, by the way, is how we ought to think as Americans, shouldn't we?

Zoran Mamdani (30:48)

There's been a lot of talk how

Ben Shapiro (30:49)

there won't be any black Republican members in the new term.

Spencer Pratt (30:52)

Yeah.

Ben Shapiro (30:53)

Yeah.

Unidentified Male Commentator 1 (30:54)

What do you make of that?

Wesley Hunt (30:55)

Nothing. I don't understand how that's relevant.

Ben Shapiro (30:57)

Is it a problem like recruitment or.

Wesley Hunt (30:59)

I don't think it's a problem with anything. I'm not here because I'm black. I am here because I'm qualified representative for congressional district 38. And the American people choose who they want to choose. And the one thing I don't want to get into is this game of race bait all day, every day. If there's four, if there's ten, if there's none. What we are talking about is who is the best person, person that is best qualified to fill a seat regardless of the way that they look.

Ben Shapiro (31:24)

I mean, that is absolutely right. And that's what Republicans think. But Democrats, of course, think that if not enough people of a particular melanin level are in Congress, that somehow this is reflective of deep and abiding American racism. Okay, now again, there are many Republicans right now not a huge number, but some who are off the Trump train for a variety of reasons. But let me just remind you, none of this good stuff would be happening absent President Trump. None of it. You would have preferred Kamala Harris? Is that what you prefer? One person who apparently would have is Candace Owens. Alrighty. Coming up, we'll get to Erica Kirk finally tearing into Candace Owens. Plus, we'll get to all the latest in the congressional races and, you know, pretty much everything else. First, here's the thing. If you own a business, you probably have no idea how many brokers it actually takes to insure that business. That is a problem. You got policies scattered everywhere. Applications. They keep asking for that same information. No real picture of how it all fits together. When something goes wrong, and that's a problem for you, it's going to cost you time. It's going to cost you money, either on the front end or on the back end. Our sponsor, Super Short, is built to blow all that up. It's one brokerage for your business coverage with a licensed super agent and account team that actually works your account year round, not just at renewal. Instead of wondering who to call, you have one place, one team, one platform to keep your policies organized in a single insurance vault. If you've ever stared at a policy and thought, I speak English, this, it doesn't look like English, Super Sure's Fine Print Facts tool Translate the legalese into plain language so you can finally see what you have, what it covers and what it does not. And that's the most important thing you need to make sure that you need the coverage that you have the coverage that you need. That's what you need to do right now. Head on over to Super Sure.com, get a full report on your current policies. No obligation. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured, somewhere in between. Go to supersure.com Shapiro One super agency, one powerful platform. All your policies in one place. Go to super sure.com Shapiro that's at super sure.com Shapiro Paid for by Super Sure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Also our sponsor. Balance of Nature's Whole Health System makes it simple to get a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my diet, all while maintaining a busy lifestyle. Balance of Nature supplements are incredibly versatile and easy to work into your daily routine. The fiber and spice supplement blends smoothly into your favorite drinks. The fruits and veggies capsules can be swallowed or sprinkled on your favorite dishes. Each supplement is packed with 47 ingredients from 100% real, whole, whole fruits, veggies, spices, fibers, everything from flax seed to cinnamon, turmeric, mango, pineapple, wild blueberry, spinach, kale, and so much more. Whenever I'm traveling, I rely on balance of nature to keep me healthy. You should do the same. Save over 30% when you subscribe on balanceofnature.com, join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. So Candace, she has said that she regrets her vote for Trump. Listen, we all have some regrets in life, but in today's news surrounding Candace Owens, Erica Kirk has now come out and condemned Candace directly. After months of Candace implying, openly stating that Erica was complicit in Charlie's death, finally Erica Kirk came out and said something. And by the way, I have to say, as somebody who was saying from literally the first moment this sort of crap started circulating, that it's garbage and terrible and horrible and evil what people are doing. To Erica, as somebody who laments the fact that that's somehow a controversial statement in some right wing circles and that where are her allies? The fact that she has to come out and defend herself here from this nonsense is indicative of a moral collapse on the part of the pseudo. Right. It's disgusting that Erica has to somehow come out and defend herself from bizarre charges that she's involved in a cover up of the murder of her husband. She's the mother of his kids. It's disgusting. Disgusting that she has to do this. Well, yesterday, in a much noted Internet moment, she called out Candace Owens for her disgusting conspiracism. Here she was.

Erica Kirk (35:12)

Every morning I wake up to a new headline lying about me. I have comedians dressing up in whiteface. I have people saying I'm not fit to be CEO. And I have Candace Owens claiming I murdered my husband. And the list goes on and on and on.

Ben Shapiro (35:36)

And as she points out, she is now under a security threat because of this sort of stuff, which of course is true. I mean, by the way, I know this kind of stuff is true because I know where my security threats come from as well. Here is Erica saying that if you keep stripping people of their humanity, then this is where you end up.

Erica Kirk (35:54)

This culture we're living in absorbs disagreement as a form of personal betrayal. It turns having an opposing viewpoint into a moral crime worthy of punishment. And here's what I've realized through all of this. Truly, having lived through quite literal hell these past seven months, if you strip someone of their humanity long enough, you will arrive at the chilling conclusion that they don't deserve to exist at all.

Ben Shapiro (36:27)

So Erica finally spoke out and. And then Candace denied everything because she's a coward. So she put out a tweet quote. Very uncomfortable to watch, painful prompt to read a speech clearly written by someone else. Objectively terrible. So they will now pay for people to tell us otherwise. Also, of everything I've ever said about Erica, she chooses to respond to something I never said. They always lie. I'm not sure there's a bigger liar in American life than Candace Owens. I mean, truly an astonishing liar. So it turns out a person named Aubrey Leitch was texting with Candace Owens, and Andrew Colvitt released these texts. And in the text, she literally accuses Erica Kirk of murder. So this person, Aubrey Lage and Candace were texting each other during the. You remember part of the saga is when Erica was forced basically to go and sit down with Candace while she was making these crazy accusations. This is just before the TPUSA event at the end of last year. And this person wrote, I assume she's coming to you. This is actually so wild. And Candace said, and she has apparently been preparing since yesterday evening. And this Aubrey Leitch person said, been preparing explanations for all the lies they have told. I assume if Colvitt and her have any common sense, they see the online narrative and understand that their support is fading very rapidly. And Candace said she is coming here. And yes, absurd. They need to prepare. And then this Aubrey Leitch person wrote back, geez, that's actually crazy. I'm so intrigued to hear how it goes. I got your back. Go Max. And she wrote back, I'm asking everything. First question, why did you murder your husband? So yes, Candace is a liar. And here is Candace making a wild series of accusations ranging from complicity of Erica in the murder to all sorts of other accusations surrounding Erica. She is truly an awful human being. And honestly, if you are an audience member of Candace who foments this sort of evil because she makes money off of you, the way she makes money is by spewing trash into the public spear sphere, and then she makes money off it through advertising. That's how she does it. So if she's monetizing your gullibility, then you are complicit in this nonsense. Here is Candace.

Candace Owens (38:48)

That right there is why it is impossible for me to think that Erica Kirk is not complicit somehow. Straight to jail. Straight to jail. For questioning, at least. Erica. I have seen enough, ladies and gentlemen. I've seen enough. Erica Kirk should be dragged into a police precinct for questioning. Like I said, the amount of evidence that is now piling up, I would say against Erica Kirk is almost akin to an NBC Dateline episode.

Ben Shapiro (39:18)

I don't want to say anything that's controversial. She did it. But I do want.

Candace Owens (39:23)

It just screams at me that this was an inside job. It reeks of an inside job. That is how I feel.

Ben Shapiro (39:33)

But she never said any of that. She never said. By the way, she lies about a lot of stuff, as it turns out. Most recently, she lied about the fact that her husband was allegedly arrested for a DUI in August 2023. She said it wasn't true. It turns out that there was a police report showing that her husband George, who is a British immigrant who now has dual citizenship at the time, I don't believe he did that. He was found on the side of a highway. More alcohol than human, apparently. His blood alcohol level was 0.261, which is 3.3 times the legal limit somewhere in that neighborhood, who's also wandering on the side of the road in possession of a firearm. She lied about that too. She said that never happened. Apparently that police report is now widely available. Also, a member of Charlie's security team, the head of his security, has now filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace for saying that he and Erica conspired to murder Charlie. According to the lawsuit, quote, Candace Owens, a wealthy, influential and well known conspiracy theorist with a massive social media following, falsely accused Brian Harpole of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk. She did so in coordination with Mitchell Snow, who fed Owens a completely and obviously fabricated story. Brian Harpole met with army intelligence officers and Erica Kirk, Charlie's now widow, at Fort Huachuca to plan the murder. Unsurprisingly, this lawsuit follows. There are six counts in the lawsuit ranging from defamation to false light invasion of privacy, to civil conspiracy to defame, to aiding and abetting defamation. He's demanding a jury trial. Again, the fact that Erica has been forced to now defend herself, the fact there's a lawsuit about all of this, it doesn't just show that Candace Owens is quite a terrible human being, which clearly she is. It also shows the absolute unbelievable cowardice of so many people who have been hugging her for the last eight months. True cowardice. And if you think that the sort of vile, toxic garbage that she's been spewing into the public sphere has no impact, know that the left has picked it up as well. Jennifer Welch, who again is sort of. I have no idea why this person is. Is in some way popular with the Left, but they pick weird models for sure. Jennifer Welch dressed up like Erica Kirk to tell Erica Kirk that she is a racist fascist. Because Erica Kirk is pursuing the great crime of defending herself from charges that she murdered her husband or is complicit in a cover up of said murder.

Jennifer Welch (41:58)

Make sure you like and subscribe. Make sure you pre order my book, which I would like to dedicate to one Erica Kirk, not today Fascist. And Erica, the person that I'm talking about today fascist is you.

Erica Kirk (42:12)

You.

Jennifer Welch (42:12)

You were the racist fascist about whom I am talking to. The work that your husband's company and that you were doing to America's youth to make them racist, narrow minded, hateful and bat crazy is an absolute disgrace. And thank you for the outfit, Inspo. Thank you very much for that. It's been a lot of fun. Make sure you subscribe to our channel. Make sure you pre order my book. You're welcome for ugly cattiness, but you're

Ben Shapiro (42:42)

making money off of it. I'm serious. Disgusting, disgusting stuff, obviously. But this is also who the Democrats have become. So one of the factors that that's fascinating about the midterm elections is is that apparently while President Trump's approval is down, Republicans remain somewhat steady with likely midterm voters as well as GOP voters, according to a brand new Harvard Harris poll. Again, what you see here is that while President Trump is at 42% overall, and again, that is not some sort of kind of gigantic shock. He's been in the mid-40s for months and months at this point. This is his lowest point, but it is not wildly lower than he has been preferred previously in this Harvard Harris poll. It turns out that when it comes to midterm voters and GOP voters, he's basically where he was. Nothing has really changed all that much. And part of that is because Democrats are largely disliked. It's also because Americans actually agree with President Trump about our interests in the Middle East. So they're upset more about inflation than they are actually about, say, the war in Iran. 48% of Americans say that inflation and affordability is their number one issue. Foreign affairs is 2%, 2%. So naturally, if they believe that foreign affairs is impacting inflation, they're not going to like what's going on. But to pretend that they are somehow on the other side of the war is wrong. They are not. According to the same Harvard Harris poll, 74% of Americans believe that it's in America's interest you stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 66% of Americans believe, believe it's in America's interest to restrain the global influence of China and Russia. Meanwhile, in the primaries, J.D. vance still has a strong lead among Republicans. He's clocking in at 48% to 18% for Don Jr. Who of course is sort of just a proxy for President Trump. Marco Rubio at 16%, Ron DeSantis, governor of Florida and 9%. Tucker Carlson stuck down there at 4%. Meanwhile, among Democrats, Kamala Harris is up to 50%, Gavin Newsom at 22%. Pretty astonishing numbers there for the candidate who lost to Donald Trump. Now the Democrats have decided that the only way to win is to go more and more radical, which is totally insane. Jon Favreau, who you'll remember just a couple of weeks ago. I know Jon, he's a likable enough fellow, but you know, I don't know what he thinks he's doing here aside from hanging out with Hasan Piker while Hasan Piker was hugging Hamas. Now he is grilling the DNC chair Ken Martin, suggesting that the Democrats have to move further and further and further to the left. That's the only way to win, apparently. I understand there are lessons, but those are not the full report. Why not release the full report? What's in the report that you wouldn't want?

Jon Favreau (45:32)

Well, first off, yeah, there's no smoking gun in the report. And I know that's, that's what everyone's so eager to learn. I think the smoking gun. Guess what, John?

Ben Shapiro (45:41)

But if there's no smoking gun, why wouldn't you just release it then?

Jon Favreau (45:44)

Because we want to keep the focus on the lessons. Because what ends up happening here is that people of course want to weaponize the report in a way to look backwards, to point fingers, place blame in a way that actually doesn't keep us focused on the upcoming election, but instead the navel gazing of focusing backwards actually takes us backwards. We're 189 days from this election, Jon.

Ben Shapiro (46:09)

Okay, so what is Jon Favreau's actual recommendation that the Democratic Party needs to join up with the Hassan Pikers and also with the Grant Platner. So you remember that Graham Platner is the main Senate Democratic candidate with the Nazi tattoo, like the actual literal Nazi tattoo who had appeared on Nazi podcast as well. Well now Janet Mills, who had been basically talked into running for the Senate by the Democratic Party in order to take out Susan Collins, she suspended her campaign for Senate on Thursday. Graham Platner, who cosplays, is a blue collar dude. He is now going to win that primary. And Jon Favreau is pleased with this. Graham Platner isn't just our best and only chance to beat Susan Collins. He's a good, decent man who's struggled and grown and is always trying to do better. Oh, that's what a Nazi tattoo is? Struggled and grown, is it? By the way, that Nazi tattoo was on him until literally this race. He was fine with it until like this precise moment in time. I hope everyone with reservations takes a little time to get to know the real life version of him, not what the algorithm throws in our faces. Clearly that's what so many people in Maine have done from all different walks of life and political persuasions. I'm just going to point out now that Jon Favreau in 2002 literally tweeted, Let me know when a far lefty candidate appears with a Nazi sympathizer and we can chat. I'm letting you know right now, John. I'm gonna let you know right now, actually, like this moment. Meanwhile, here was Graham platner, as in 2022. Meanwhile, here is Graham Platner saying that the DNC has not contacted and Jon Stewart being like, no, the DNC must contact you. You are our future. You are our future. Here's the thing. The same Democratic Party that thinks that white people are racist, this is one of the reasons they think that Graham Platner is like the white people talker. They think that he is the spokesperson for Democrat white people. Because if white people are kind of Nazis, then maybe if we run some dude with a Nazi tattoo who cosplays a jean wearing, blue collar dude even though he's kind of wealthy, then maybe that'll win over the white people in Maine. Susan Collins is going to retain this seat. I'm just, that's my prediction. Susan Collins will continue to maintain the seat and Grant Platinum will lose, but the Democratic Party will keep digging down this rabbit hole. Here is Jon Stewart.

Graham Platner (48:28)

Past couple months though, there has been more reach out from, I would say more kind of like establishment folks. However, however, and this is the important part, not from like the, not from like the dscc, not from the dnc. Like the, like, nobody in the places of power remains interested, but they're lost, dude. Like, they're, it's so bad, they're lost. And the thing that bothers me the most isn't like, I'm not, I'm not asking for you to like be my friend. I'm just. But you should be curious because I'm pulling 40 points ahead

Ben Shapiro (49:06)

I mean, we know why you're polling 40 points ahead because primary voters tend to favor the more extreme candidate with the more colorful rhetoric. That would be the reason. Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats continue to try and hug Graham Platner with the most. I mean, it's awkward hugging. Really awkward. Senator Chris Van Hollen, truly a dullard from Maryland. He says that Platner is going to grab the attention of blue collar voters because he wears a sweatshirt. Gang,

Chris Van Hollen (49:32)

in my view, we need somebody who will shake things up. And Platner has clearly proven himself to be somebody who can, you know, grab the attention of a lot of voters and not just Democratic primary voters. You know, we're talking about blue collar labor voters. We're talking about some of the tribes up in Maine who have not been happy with the way things are going. So, you know, Platner, you know, for all his sort of, you know, ups and downs and. Well, let's talk about this. Edge has been somebody who connects him.

Ben Shapiro (50:07)

You know, he's blue collar. I mean, never mind the fact that he's the grandson of a Manhattan architect. His dad is a lawyer, his mom is a restaurateur whose business caters to summer tourists. And. And he went to the Hotchkiss school Silver spoon. He's really blue collar. You know how you can tell he's blue collar? Because he has a Nazi tattoo. Actually, it's demonstrative of how he can cater to those terrible blue collar voters who generally like President Trump. The way to get to those guys is the dude with the Nazi tattoo. Chris Van Hollen says, you know, he went through a rough period. A rough period when he got a Nazi tattoo. Oh, goodness gracious.

Chris Van Hollen (50:42)

The dude has not had a Nazi tattoo. I mean, let's be clear about what's going on here.

Ben Shapiro (50:45)

I mean, is that. How do you view that?

Chris Van Hollen (50:47)

I mean, that seems to be at least somewhat disqualifying in traditional, certainly historical. I mean, let's take a couple issues, including the comments he's made in the past. I mean, he's been very clear that he went into combat on behalf of the United States. He went through a really rough period, PTSD type period. And he has himself said there are lots of things he's done and said that he completely regrets. And I do believe people should have second chances and that people can learn from their mistakes. And I think he's been doing that.

Ben Shapiro (51:23)

Oh, oh, he's been learning from his mistakes. Let's be real about this. The reason that he's popular is because of the Nazi Tattoo and the pro Hamas comments. This is why moral derelict Hasan Piker literally praises him for his praise of Hamas in 2014. It's a feature, not a bug for the Democratic Party. Dude, are you unironically saying Janet Mills is better than Graham Platner? Please, dude, he was pro Hamas, OK? He was giving Hamas credit in 2014. OK? What more do you want? What more do you want? He's great. He's great. And if Hasan Piker says you're great, then you're great. By the way, you want to talk about Cartier Communists, Manchin Marxists over here. What a pretentious douchebag Hasan Piker is. Truly. He took a picture of himself reading what is to Be Done by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin on a train. Honestly, watching him read, it's like those pictures of LeBron James where you'd go into the locker room and LeBron had read one page of a book and people are like, I'm not sure he read that book. First of all, the fact that he. This guy, this one, the guy can barely make his way through one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish, and he's sitting there reading Lenin while he wears Cartier jewelry. He just wanted. But this is the. I was asked, somebody was asking me yesterday, actually, we were talking about this, and they said, I don't understand. How does he get away with that? You don't understand. That is the draw of the Hasan Pikers. The transgressive nature of wearing very expensive, capitalist driven jewelry while reading Lenin is the draw. It is a nihilistic, hypocritical draw. That's what it is. Anything that is destructive of systems, and that appears to be sort of campy, is what the Democrats are looking for, which is why they're fine with Nazi tattoo guy. Once again, the only voice of reason in the Democratic Party is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Here was his comment on Graham Platner. Quote, democrats really, really like Platner in Maine, but the Republicans effing love him. If Maine wants an a hole with a Nazi tattoo on his chest, they got him. Fetterman, the only rational person in the Democratic Party at this point. Meanwhile, over in Los Angeles, the mayoral race is heating up. Spencer Pratt has now cut a pretty viral ad regarding the failures of Los Angeles leadership, contrasting the homes of the people implementing crappy policy with, you know, the actual living conditions of a lot of Angelenos.

Spencer Pratt (53:59)

This is where Mayor Vass lives. You notice something? Or here, where Nithya Raman's $3 million mansion sits. They don't have to live in the mess they've created. Where you live. This is where I live. They let my home burn down.

Ben Shapiro (54:14)

And he shows what the consequences of failed leadership are.

Spencer Pratt (54:18)

That's why I'm running for mayor, for my sons and the rest of us Angelenos that want to stop these corrupt politicians from destroying our city. We are going to get the golden age of Los Angeles back.

Ben Shapiro (54:30)

So again, contrasting their nice houses in the middle of LA with the trailer where he has to live because his house burned down because of bad fire policy. So meanwhile, one of the other LA mayoral candidates is an LA City Council member named Nithya Rahman. And she is as far left as it's possible to be, which means that she is. Welcome to Pod Save America. Of course. How radical is she? Well, she blames stolen catalytic converters, people stealing parts out of cars, not on the crime policies. She blames it on Toyota. It's the fault of the car company.

Unidentified Female Commentator (55:06)

We have a company, you know, the Pri, whatever, Toyota, who makes the Prius, that essentially has a device on their cars which is super easy to remove. It's basically the value of a MacBook, right? That is put in a place that is included, incredibly easy to access in your car. And then the thefts related to this issue have essentially all of the costs of that are given to us to bear instead of them having to manufacture a car that actually is not so easy to be stolen.

Ben Shapiro (55:43)

This person says the fault of the car company that the car is stolen, not the fault of crime policies in Los Angeles. By the way, she also voted against a law that prohibited encampments on sidewalks and parks, schools, underpasses. Here she was explaining that, like, I

Unidentified Female Commentator (55:59)

don't think a kid's going to be safer because a tent is 500ft away from a school.

Wesley Hunt (56:03)

You know,

Ben Shapiro (56:07)

people making fun of her even in the town hall meeting. So she's one of the candidates. Things are going well in America's major cities run by Democrats. In Seattle, Mayor Katie Wilson is saying that she's fine with billionaires packing up and leaving her state. Well, we'll see how that goes for you when you have no tax base gang. I think the claims that millionaires are

Erica Kirk (56:25)

going to leave our state are, like, super overblown.

Ben Shapiro (56:28)

And if you know the ones that leave, like, bye, Yay, yay, bye, taxpayers, it's all going to be fine. By the way, this is always the approach of Democrats until they run out of money. Yeah, you taxpayers, you billionaires, you can leave. We don't even need you here. We don't need. Please come back. Please. We need your money. Please. So Zoran Mamdani is now being forced to extend a budget deadline because of a crisis. So everything will be free. Don't worry. Everything will be fine. Five minutes later. We're out of money. Sorry. We got no money. It turns out all the free stuff costs money. Here is Zoran Mandani, the pathetic mayor of New York City.

Zoran Mamdani (57:10)

New York City faces a budget crisis of a historic magnitude. We inherited a deficit larger than any since the Great Recession. Years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return have taken a toll. We cannot close this deficit with savings alone. We need new revenue, and we need a structural reset in our relationship with the state. That is the only way to meet our legal obligation to pass a balanced budget and to do so without imposing a financial burden onto the backs of working people. I'm glad to partner with Speaker Menon as we call upon Albany and deliver a balanced budget together. We are extending the executive budget deadline from this coming Friday until May 12th. Because a crisis of the scale cannot be solved without state action.

Ben Shapiro (58:01)

Oh, they ran out of money. The socialists ran out of money. Wow, There's a gigantic shocker. I can't believe it. All right, it's a Friday, so I want to bring back something we haven't done in a while. Things I like and things I hate and because, you know, it's a Friday. So let's enjoy. So my father sent me a recording last night that I wanted to share with you. It is amazing. I had never heard of this pianist before. He is astonishing. This is probably the most astonishing performance of any piano piece I've ever seen in my life. The pianist's name is Mark David Hamlin. He's Canadian American. He teaches up in the Northeast. It just demonstrates, by the way, that there are so many areas of life where people who are legitimately like, the best in the world and maybe in human history at their craft, they're just not world famous. It's kind of amazing. Like, I'd never heard of him. My father, who's a professional pianist, had never heard of him. He's unbelievable. Here is an excerpt of him playing the Hungarian Rhapsody Number two by Franz List, which you will recognize from all the Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Unidentified Female Commentator (59:04)

Sa.

Ben Shapiro (59:34)

He's an unbelievable dynamic touch, by the way. But wait until the cadenza he plays here. So cadenza is a part of a classical piece that's basically written by somebody who's not the original composer to demonstrate the skill level of the player. Here's some of that. It's, It's ridiculous. The speed with which he's playing some of these octaves is just ridiculous, Just insane. Okay, so go check out the entire performance. It's ridiculous. Okay, time for a thing I hate. So there's a story that went totally viral on the Internet over the course of the last 48 hours. It was about a very good looking woman at JP Morgan who supposedly was sexually harassing a younger man. Okay. Now these sorts of stories go viral all the time online where there's a good looking woman who is having sex with a 17 year old student and then everybody's like, aha. Okay. In this particular case, the idea was that there was a former JP Morgan staffer who had been sexually harassed by a higher up at JP Morgan who's a very pretty woman. And this thing went viral because the Daily Mail reported it. So first of all, I hope she sues the living hell out of the Daily Mail and I hope she sees the living hell out of this former JP Morgan staffer because now it turns out it was a lie, which is gross. Truly disgusting. According to the New York Post, a former JP Morgan staffer whom sources identified as Charayu Rana has been accused of making fabricated sexual harassment claims against a high ranking executive at the bank after an internal investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing. Multiple sources told the post that 35 year old Ronna, now a principal at investment firm Brigal Sage Mount, is the man who brought a bombshell lawsuit against Lorna Hashdini earlier this week. Rana's suit, filed on Monday under the pseudonym John doe, accused the 37 year old executive director of turning her into. Of turning him into her sex slave by drugging him with Rohypnol and Viagra and threatening to slash his bonus if he did not comply. The British tabloid quoted the now deleted court papers and reported that that Hajdini, the executive director at JP Morgan's leveraged finance team, even turned up unannounced at Renault's apartment and forced him to have sex. Okay. And so of course the entire Internet was like, man, I'd love his job. Oh man, I hope she sues him into the absolute dust. I hope she destroys this guy financially. What a terrible thing to do to anyone, truly. How gross and how gross of the Daily Mail to run with the allegations without even going and getting a response from her or from her lawyers or from the bank. You know, what people won't do for clicks, Truly what people want to do for clicks. Okay, Coming up, we're gonna get into the latest. In Iran, there is a fair bit of action, and it's possible that we may be seeing some more kinetic action sometime in the near future. Remember, 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.

Unidentified Female Commentator (63:02)

Sam.