Loading summary
Transcript98 lines
- [00:01]
Podcast Host (Ad Read)
This episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome, that's new. It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage motorcycle from a 50 page restoration block. Or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini and Chrome is here for it, ready to make anything online make sense. There's no place like Chrome. Check responses set up required compatibility and availability various 18 plus
- [00:27]
Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying Big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for
- [00:49]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.
- [00:55]
Ben Shapiro
See full terms@mintmobile.com Joe Biden opened the border. Donald Trump closed the border. And the Supreme Court just ruled that that is okay. The left and the legacy media, but of course, I repeat myself, they are going insane like crazy. They say the Supreme Court is now a right wing tool. It's an evil stand in for vicious racism. That's stupid. I'll explain why. Plus we'll get to Democrats embracing communism and radical jihadism. The Daily Wire preparing for a major movie release that takes on both countries, communism and jihadism, and why Europeans apparently hate air conditioning. This is the Ben Shapiro Show. Okay, so yesterday there were two Supreme Court decisions that came down. They were both six to three. It was the Republican appointees on the court versus the Democrat appointees on the court. The first decision had to do with people seeking asylum at the US Mexico border. The other had to do with the Trump administration unlabeling countries like Syria and Haiti, dangerous for purposes of deporting people here on temporary protected status. Now, before we get to the content of these decisions, we first need to understand what the Supreme Court does. Why is that important? Well, it's important because the left wants the Supreme Court to be a thing. It is not. So then they yell at the Supreme Court when it does. It doesn't do just kind of what they want, obviously. Listen, immigration is a massively hot topic and it's a huge, huge driver of votes. And immigration policy helped drive President Trump back to the White House. And the open borders policy of Joe Biden did great damage to the country. But when we are talking about Supreme Court decisions. Particularly, we have to discuss the role of the Supreme Court, because if the left doesn't get what it wants, it just attacks the court as an institution. So what is the Court supposed to do? Well, it does not make policy. It does not make good policy or bad policy. It does not decide whether policy is even good or bad. That's why we elect a Congress and a president. It's why the Supreme Court is an unelected branch of the government, because its job is to interpret what the law means, to decide what the law says. That's its whole job. So it doesn't get to say, we read the law, the law is bad. Now we're overturning the law and putting a new law in its place. That's not what the Supreme Court does. Now, the left wishes that were not the case. For decades and decades and decades, going back really to the 1930s, the left has decided the Supreme Court ought to act as essentially a super legislature, a group of really smart people who can simply rewrite policy they don't like into good left wing policy. In fact, what they want is for the Supreme Court to say that when the president or Congress does left wing things, that's legal, but when the president or Congress does right wing things, that's illegal. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a one way ratchet for the left, but again, that's not the job of the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court did its job yesterday. It doesn't matter whether you agree with what the Trump administration actually did at the US Mexico border or with Haitian migrants. Again, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to agree or disagree with such action. The question is, under our Constitution, who has the authority to do what? And the Supreme Court said that the Trump administration acted within its legally defined purview and that it could not simply overrule the Trump administration based on not liking it or liking it or whatever. If you don't like the policy, in other words, elect a different Congress or a different president. Again, that's the job of the Supreme Court. Now, to the content of these decisions. Now, the fact that these things even had to be decided at the Supreme Court level, all of this turned into a Supreme Court case because of a long history of bad legislation and then presidents taking advantage of bad legislation, which, by the way, is the story of congressional presidential relations, basically since Woodrow Wilson. Congress passing vague laws, presidents taking advantage of that in order to maximize their own power and all the rest. So let's start with the first decision. It was called Mullen versus Otolado. So, first, the background on this decision. So back in 2016, the Obama administration set up a process called metering. Okay. It was a. There was heavy migration at the southern border, as you recall. And until 2016, if you are a non citizen and you are seeking asylum at a port of entry on the US Mexico border, you would cross into US Soil and then wait in line for inspection. And at that point, we had a legal duty to listen to you. And most people would come and they would claim asylum. They would claim they couldn't go back to their home country because of a specific threat. Now, that is a different thing from temporary protected status as we'll get to asylum requires you to show a specific threat to you. You can't just say, I want to come here because my home country sucks. That's a different thing. Okay? So in order for that to be adjudicated, you would come, you would wait in line for inspection at a port of entry. And once you're on American soil, then we had a duty to actually listen to your asylum claim. Toward the end of the Obama administration, there were so many people arriving at the border, trying to get in while Obama was still in office, that the government approved something called a metering policy, under which border agents would basically stand at the border and say, don't come in. You don't have travel documents, you don't have a visa, the port of entry is full, come back later, you stay there. Why did they do that? Well, because, again, the law says you only have to process people who are in the country. That is the direct language in America. So if you don't come in, we have no legal duty to process you. The first Trump administration expanded and formalized the metering policy, and then the Biden administration rescinded it. And then they went even further. They said, hey, welcome to the border. Claim asylum, and say the magic words, I fear for my life, and I can't go back to my home country. And we will let you basically run around in the United States and stay forever. So the Trump administration, part two, comes in and says, no, no, no. Metering policy back in place. You're going to wait over there, and we will not process you. So the border is closed. It's not a matter of whether the ports of entry are full. You're not coming in, period. And if you're not on American soil, we have no duty to you. Now, listen, if you don't like that policy, all right, you can vote for Democrats to go back to the Biden way of doing the law. Or you could rewrite the law so that people who apply for citizenship have to remain in Mexico. That's Trump's remain in Mexico policy. Or theoretically, you could rewrite the law where everybody who applies for citizenship, no matter where they are, has to be given an asylum hearing, even if they don't come into the United States, but we don't have a duty to house them. There are a bunch of ways you could do this, but that's what Congress exists for. Again, the role of the various branches of government is important. You elect people to change the policy. The Supreme Court is here to interpret what the law currently says, not what it should say or who should be elected. So the plaintiffs in this case are a bunch of people who are not citizens. They're trying to get into the United States, and they say that their rights were violated because their asylum cases were never heard because they were in line. And that is as good as being in the country. So they never entered the United States. They were turned away at the border. And the court 6, 3. In a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, Great justice says no. No in the United States means in the United States. You're not in the United States if you're waiting on the other side of the border. So the court says this case presents a straightforward question. Whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico arrives in the United States. That's the language of the law. Arrives in the United States when he or she is still in Mexico. In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit answered, yes, that is wrong. In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place, for example, a house, a city, or a country before the person enters that place. The context in which the phrase arrives in the United States is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary meaning reading. So does the presumption against extraterritoriality. We therefore reverse. Behold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not arrive in the United States by attempting and failing to set foot in this country. An alien arrives in the United States only when he crosses the border. Everyday examples confirm that understanding. A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the one yard line. A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door. An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its wall. And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier's hand just inches away so Justice Thomas writes a concurrence, and his concurrence says something further. It says that there is no power, none, for Congress to force the President to bring aliens into the country. He says the Constitution allows Congress the power to regulate who doesn't get to come in. But the Constitution does not say a certain number of people must be allowed in the country. Also, says Thomas, the people in this case are not naturalized or even on the path to naturalization. You have no rights under the US Constitution if you do not live in the country, if you are not on the path to naturalization, if you've never entered the country. Random Bob from a random country can't just sue the United States on. On the basis of its immigration law. So that. That is Thomas's concurrence. Okay, so this makes perfect sense. Okay, Right. You're on the other side of the border. You don't have rights with regard to our immigration law, period. And in the country means in the country. Now, the case that was being made by Democrats is. Okay, well, then that's not the way the law is supposed to work. Right? You were supposed to be able to come up to the border and apply for asylum. And theoretically, the Trump administration is abusing that power by allowing no one to come across the. Okay, fine. If that's the case, change the law. Change the law. The solution is not to rewrite the law along the lines of your priors. All right, coming up, we'll get to this case about Haitian migrants, the more controversial case. We'll get into all the details first. June marks the first days of summer. There's a ton going on, so spend a lot of time with the kids. America's 50 cents. We have a baby coming, so a lot of stuff happening. What I do not have time to do is wade through a bunch of confusing insurance websites trying to figure out if I'm getting a good deal. And this is where Policy Genius comes in. Here's the reality. Most people know they need life insurance. They just keep putting it off because it feels complicated. Policy Genius makes it simple. It's an online insurance marketplace where you compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side for free coverage. Amounts, prices, terms, all laid out, clearly no guesswork. Their licensed team handles the paperwork, answers your questions, and advocates for you throughout the entire process. They're not trying to upsell you. They're working to get you the right policy at the most affordable price. Protecting your family financially isn't a someday task. It's a priority. And with thousands of five star reviews on Google and trustpilot, people are finding great policies and checking this off their list for good. Get it done in minutes. Get on with your summer with Policygenius. You can see if you can find 20 year life insurance policies starting at just 276 bucks a year. But for a million dollars in coverage, head on over to policygenius.com Shapiro to compare life insurance quotes from top companies. See how much you could save. It's policygenius.com Shapiro okay, now for the more controversial case, the Haitian migrants case. So here is the background. And once again, the only reason this is a Supreme Court case is because Congress passed a law that was incredibly vague and handed tremendous authority to the President. And then various presidents have deliberately abused the law in various ways. So again, back to the background. In 1990, Congress passes something called the Immigration Act. One of the provisions of the Immigration act is something called temporary protected status. So the idea is you come to the United States on a travel visa, you're tooling around, and suddenly your home country goes nuts, there's a coup, terrorists take over. Well, you could be given temporary protected status by the executive branch. At the time, Congress designated one country and one country only, El Salvador, as a country where things were so dangerous that you didn't have to be deported back to your home country. Even if you were, for example, overstaying your visa. TPS can only be granted for people in the country. Now, it doesn't matter if you came legally or illegally. If you're in the country, TPS can be granted to you if the executive branch deems that your home country is wildly dangerous. So what happened? Well, over the course of decades, the list of countries that became dangerous expanded and the borders open. So the Obama and Biden administrations in particular took advantage of TPS in order to radically change immigration law. They would open the borders, bring in a bunch of people from crappy countries, label all those home countries dangerous, and now people can stay for literally ever. The average temporary protected status holder in the United States has been here for 20 years. So the Trump administration is like, hey, it's supposed to be temporary. It's in the word temporary. Democrats are saying, no, no, no, it's protected, right? The focus should be on protected. Republicans are saying that the focus should be on temporary. Now, originally, only one country was labeled by Congress too dangerous for people to go home. That was El Salvador. That was back in 1990, which again is again, my math, 36 years ago. There are now 17 countries from which people are protected from going home. The Trump administration came in and they declared that a bunch of these countries are no longer dangerous for purposes of deporting people. And those countries include places like Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Yemen, South Sudan, Haiti, Syria, Somalia and Ethiopia. Now, let's be real about this again. I want to be clear about what's factual and what's not factual. Factual. Many of these countries are wildly dangerous. Haiti is a wildly dangerous country. It is the most dangerous country in the Western hemisphere by a long shot. 5,500 people were murdered in Haiti last year alone. Sex trafficking is rampant. Gangs basically run the place. It is an anarchic hellhole. Trump himself called it a bleep hole country. There's a reason for that because it is. It's a terrible, terrible place. But here's what happened. Democrats are claiming that basically temporary protected status is a one way ratchet. A president can legalize vast swaths of illegal immigration by labeling a country dangerous, but then a subsequent president cannot unlabel that country unless there's a showing that the country is actually not dangerous. So current policy is a series of sins. The extension of TPS policy from 1990 on to apply to a wide variety of countries, combined with an open border policy, where it wasn't just, okay, there are a few people who got caught here and they can't go home because things are really bad. Instead, what we'll do is we'll open the border wide and we'll say if you can get in, right? If you can just get in by falsely claiming asylum, which again, the standard for asylum is not your home country is dangerous. It is, you are specifically targeted in your own home country. It's a different status. Or if you illegally immigrate, which is what happened under Obama and Biden, and then you label their home countries too dangerous to go back to, you can actually effectuate tens of millions of people coming into the country illegally and then getting a form of legal status under tps. The Trump administration is trying to backfill that problem by using the tools they have under the law in what, again, I think are ways that don't meet common definitions. But that's not the question. The question is what tools did the Trump administration have under the law? Okay, now again, all of this is very hot stuff and was very hot stuff during the election cycle. President Trump particularly was going after Haitian migrants in Minnesota, pointing out, or Ohio, rather, he was pointing out that Haitian migrants in Ohio were not assimilating well. And again, let's be real about this. Not everyone assimilates at the same rate in terms of general group and culture. Pretending that people who are coming from, say, an English speaking country that shares democratic values with those of the United States, a group of immigrants from Australia or something, that that's the same as a group of immigrants from Haiti is silly. This became very hot because we, there were online rumors that turned out to be, shall we say, wildly exaggerated that Haitians were eating dogs and cats around the neighborhood. Back in 2024, here was the president in a debate. This of course, was extremely viral.
- [16:15]
Joe Biden (quoted)
A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats, they're eating, they're eating the pets of, of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame.
- [16:36]
Ben Shapiro
Again, there's a very solid remix of that particular line from, from the president that's popular with Mitchell. In any case, it is true that the number of TPS holders from Haiti has exploded. According to stats from the U.S. citizenship and Immigration Services that USCIS as well as the Congressional Research Service, in 2010, there were between 50,000 and 70,000 Haitian TPS holders. Sixteen years later, there were between 330,000 and 350,000 Haitian TPS holders. And remember, all these people have kids and those kids, we'll find this out later when the Supreme Court decides on birthright citizenship. Those kids are natural born citizens of the United States. So the Supreme Court has to decide whether or not the President can label Syria and Haiti non dangerous for purposes of deportation. So Justice Alito again, six three decision. He says, quote, in these cases, we consider whether respondents who challenge the termination of temporary protected status for aliens from Syria and Haiti are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation. We hold they are not. The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents non constitutional claims. It allows, quote, no judicial review of any determination with respect to the termination of a TPS designation. Again, they're just looking at the law. Now, again, you might not like how the Trump administration is using the law, but the law says what the law says. Now, the plaintiffs in this case, Haitian migrants who don't want to be deported. They're citing statements made by members of the administration saying that they are doing this because of racism. And what the Supreme Court says is, well, not really citing statements made by President Trump and former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noemi. One set of respondents advances an equal protection claim that Haiti's TPS designation was terminated because of the racial makeup of that country's population. But ironically, one of the respondents other arguments undermines the equal protection claim by offering a strong race neutral explanation for Haiti's termination, namely that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program, at least as it has been implemented in the past. So in other words, you're citing a bunch of comments that Trump made like eating the cats and the dogs and saying he's a racist and that's why he wants to get rid of people who from Haiti and that violates the equal protection clause. But in reality they just don't like the TPS provisions instead of killing them and the law allows them to do that. Right? That's the argument. The argument is that the law allows the President to just end tps. He doesn't have to make an excuse to Congress, he doesn't have to make an excuse to the courts. It's non reviewable and that's the way Congress wrote it. If Congress wishes to label Haiti a country covered by TPS in law, Congress can do that and they can define how long people can stay and they can define how, how people are deported and all of that. But that's not what they did in this law. That's not what they did. Justice Thomas goes further in his concurrence. He says Congress barred all judicial review of TPS termination decisions, including constitutional claims. Since nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing so. Courts are obliged to simply give effect to the ordinary meaning of the law. He says the termination of Haiti's TPS designation does not deprive respondents of life, liberty or property. So they have no claim, even if the words at due process implicitly forbid discriminatory animus. He says, by the way, that actually there's nothing in the law that even forbids discriminatory animus. So you're claiming that this is discrimination, but the law itself doesn't bar discrimination. And there's no equal protection claim that applies to the federal government with regard to migrants. He says the discretionary and limited status that a TPS designation provides, like any immigration status for aliens, is a government created privilege, not a core private right. You don't have a right to be here. We're giving you a privilege to be here. And that can be rejected at any time for any reason. If equal protection principles apply to immigration decisions, much of even our current immigration law would conflict with the Court's modern equal protection doctrine. And the point that Thomas is making there is that if you were to apply equal protection immigration law generally, we openly discriminate between countries of origin, which would violate equal protection. So clearly that's not the case. We'll get to dissents from the left on these cases in a moment. First, America was built by people who worked hard and also slept well. If you are not sleeping well, you're not operating at your full capacity. And we need you at full capacity. America's 250th is coming up. You need to be ready. And this is where Helix comes in again. Helix Sleep will make it so that you get a better night's sleep. It is that simple. How well they offer over 20 mattress models. Take a quick quiz and get matched to the right one for how you actually sleep. Your position, your temperature, your firmness preference, all of it. Free shipping, the 120 night sleep trial, and the Happy with Helix guarantee make it completely risk free. It's the most awarded mattress brand out there. It's been tested and reviewed by Forbes and Wired, among others. The 4th of July is coming. Invest in your sleep, Invest in yourself. Head over to helixleep.comBen for 20% off site wide, 25% off Luxe mattresses, 30% off Elite mattresses. That's helixsleep.comBen for 20% off Site wide, 25% off Luxit mattresses, 30% off Elite Mattresses. Again, I have a Helix Sleep mattress. My wife and I took that sleep quiz. We got a mattress made for us and it's awesome. You can do the same. Head on over to helixleep.com Ben so Sonia Sotomayor wrote a very heated dissent here. She actually read her Descent from the Bench, which is your sign that you're very upset about a decision, is if you're reading a dissent from the bench, you're saying that you're upset. Sonia Sotomayor she says the rest of the current asylum system developed in response to the international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust in World War II. One infamous incident, the voyage of the Ms. St. Louis, is emblematic. In 1939, over 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee persecution in Nazi Germany by setting sail aboard the Ms. St. Louis, which was headed to Cuba and the United States. The ship docked in the Havana harbor. For days, the Cuban government refused to allow the fleeing passengers off board. The ship sailed near the Miami coastline. US Government turned them away because the immigration laws at the time had strict country quotas and the relevant quota was Already filled for the year, and eventually it returned to Europe, and people on the ship were murdered by the Germans. Now, again, that is a horrible, horrible immigration story. Obviously, the answer to that was that under current law, for example, a case should be made that the president should grant TPS status or that asylum should be processed. In other words, the answer doesn't lie with the Supreme Court. The answer, again, notice what Sonia Sotomayor is saying. She's making a moral case that has nothing to do with the role of the court. The court is not a legislature. I agree the people from the St. Louis should have been allowed in the country. And I also agree that there are certain people who claim asylum who should be allowed in. I think the vast majority of people currently claiming asylum to the United States are lying about their asylum claims. I even agree that TPS should be allowed for certain people, not, certainly, the gigantic swaths of illegal immigrants who have been entering the country under Biden and Obama and the rest. But that has nothing to do with the role of the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan, in her dissent, she suggests that basically the TPS designation for Haitians being revoked is based on racial animus. Now, again, Thomas says it doesn't matter if it was, because when it comes to the idea that the equal protection clause even applies to immigration law, how the hell would you do that? Kagan, however, says that President Trump saying things like the Haitians are eating the dog and eating the pets and all of the rest of it, that that is a reason to reject the termination of Haiti's TPS designation. I mean, what's funny to me, by the way, is that the court on the left side didn't try to rely on the idea that Trump himself literally called Haiti a bleep hole country, which cuts very much against the idea that Haiti is a safe place to go back to. Okay, but again, none of that is relevant to the question of what the actual court is supposed to do, what the court is supposed to do. And so we have to separate out these two policies, because what you're going to see is Democrats attacking the court. If they want to attack the Trump administration over the policy, that's fair game. That's called politics. Attacking the court, which is what they actually are doing is wrongheaded. The court is interpreting law in the clearest possible way, and the court happens to be right on all of this. And the measures the Trump administration are taking are fixes that are designed only in order to counter the complete degradation of immigration law by Democrats. Tom Homan, who is Our border czar, he points out that temporary means temporary.
- [24:51]
Tom Homan
You know, I've been doing this since 1984. TPS has never been temporary. That's why the whole statute exists. Temporarily give people protection while the country's in turmoil or after they suffer a hurricane. But the problem is no administration has had the guts to actually follow that statute. President Trump has the guts to follow the law. So temporary means temporary. When the condition that country gets better, they need to go home. There, you know, there are millions of people standing in line, want to be part of the greatest nation on earth. And that goes back to my early point. People said, why do you arrest them if they're not criminal? Printer, 10 years. Because he cheated the system.
- [25:30]
Ben Shapiro
Okay? Now, again, he's kind of conflating a couple of things here. A lot of people did cheat the system by coming in illegally also, again, to pretend that Haiti is safe for Haitians. So Stephen Miller, I think, is being cynical or ironic when he says this. Obviously, Haiti is not safe for Haitians. Haiti is safe for no one. Haiti is a hellhole. But here's Stephen Miller making the case
- [25:51]
Stephen Miller
Haitians live in Haiti. It's not our position that Haitians should leave Haiti.
- [25:54]
Ben Shapiro
I mean, it would be.
- [25:55]
Stephen Miller
It'd be crazy for us to say that Haitians couldn't live in Haiti. It's their country. Of course Haitians should live in Haiti. There's no viable asylum or use a technical term here, cat claim or withholding claim for any Haitian seeking relief from going back to Haiti to their homeland. The fact that there might be pockets of hair Haiti where there's higher crime rates, guess what? There's pockets of Chicago with crime rates just as high. Right. There's pockets of cities like St. Louis with crime just as high, pockets of Los Angeles crime just as high. It has never been the case that having communities that have high crime rates is a basis for asylum. Never has been, never will be.
- [26:35]
Ben Shapiro
Okay? Now, what Democrats are going to do on the basis of this is they're going to call Republicans cruel, as Republicans are going to say, listen, we should not be taking in hundreds of thousands of people illegally and then backfilling that with a TPS designation.
- [26:49]
Stephen Miller
Right?
- [26:49]
Ben Shapiro
We should not be doing that. By the way, the actual proper solution, to me, were I in charge of policy for the Trump administration, I'd be recommending that we try to facilitate the entry of Haitian migrants to some sort of third country. That out of what, call it sympathy or just call it basic humanitarian care, sending people to Haiti. There's a reason why people are trying to escape Haiti. Haiti is indeed a hellhole. Democrats are going to try to take advantage of this. Hakeem Jeffries called the decision cruel. He put out a statement and again he's attacking the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has recklessly rubber stamped the Trump administration's crusades rip legal status from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian TPS holders, forcing them to return to a dangerous and deeply unstable environment where they know people are at risk. TPS holders from Haiti and Syria are hardworking neighbors, actively contributing to our communities, supporting our small businesses and filling critical labor needs. Now, again, this is where Democrats go too far. I can have a lot of sympathy for the folks who don't want to go back to Haiti or Syria, which again, are hellholes. But blaming the Supreme Court for interpreting the law correctly or suggesting that America somehow has a duty to everybody from a bad country to take them in is obviously silly, foolish and counterproductive. Zoran Mamdani reacts Again, attacking the court. It's kind of, it's kind of the desire, the deep and abiding desire on the part of Democrats to destroy the court as an instrument of interpretation and to turn it into just another left wing tool is the real undergirding policy here. Democrats despise the court because the court is a check on unbridled power for them. If they can turn it into a tool for power, then they can just enforce their will from the top down, which is what they really want. And the Democratic branches of government are the Congress and the President. If you don't like it, elect a different Congress and a different president. That's not what they want. They want to wreck the court. Here is Zoran Mamzani, the leader of the Democratic Party and mayor of New York.
- [28:45]
Zoran Mamdani
When we think about especially what Haitian New Yorkers have had to deal with, not just for weeks or months or years, but frankly for decades, we have seen a cruelty that has become normalized. And to have a people who frankly taught the world about freedom, have their own freedom be put in jeopardy by the actions of a Supreme Court and a federal administration, it is not only cruel, it's something that we will not ever accept.
- [29:10]
Ben Shapiro
Okay, well, I mean, he's gonna have to accept it because the law remains the law. Zormadani claiming that he won't accept it like Madhu. That's not how the system works. That's not how the system works. And again, Haiti was founded in a slave revolt, a pretty bloody slave revolt. That doesn't mean that It's a wonderful place or has been governed well since, which it clearly has not. Representative Delia Ramirez of Illinois. She again was attacking the court. Yet the court isn't the problem here, guys. If you don't like the law, change the law. This is an institutionalist argument. Congress exists, the presidency exists. Change the law if you don't like it. But attacking the court for just interpreting the law, how it's written, that's ugly stuff. And it is bad for our system of government for sure.
- [29:58]
Pramila Jayapal
Trump's loyalists in the Supreme Court have joined forces with him to deny immigrants internationally recognized human rights and advance an authoritarian white supremacist agenda here at home and friends. It is shameful what the Supreme Court did today. The Supreme Court's decision puts more than 350,000 TPS holders at risk of deportation. Their TPS will be terminated, not because of the conditions that made immigrants seek refuge in our country have changed in any way. It's because they do not fit Trump and Miller's idea of who deserves to be safe, who has the right to dignity, and who gets to be an American. You and I know that is unacceptable.
- [30:42]
Ben Shapiro
It's amazing. Democrats can't stop themselves. They can't. They can't just make the argument that you shouldn't deport people to hell whole countries. We should try to find another place for them. They have to argue that everybody who came into the country is wonderful and incredible, which of course is not true. Pramila Jayapal, she says we have a responsibility not to send people to their death. This is the very radical progressive caucus leader for the Democratic Party.
- [31:06]
Pramila Jayapal
This program is about our responsibility as the United States of America to not send people home to their death.
- [31:17]
Ben Shapiro
Okay? I mean, again, this sort of responsibility, do we. Do we have to take in every single refugee from every single bad country on planet Earth? What is the limiting principle now? There is no limiting principle for the far left. Let's be clear. They want open borders, and they do wish to actually destroy America by having our borders be completely open. Ro Khanna is open about this. So Ro Khanna, who is now being treated as a hero of the progressive left, there's a witness who is testifying in front of the House talking about Chinese birth tourism. So there's a major issue in the United States. It really is. It's a major issue, particularly in California, where Chinese immigrants who are not immigrants, Chinese illegal immigrants, will show up in the United States late in pregnancy and drop a baby in the United States as an anchor baby. Because now their Kids are citizens. And Ro Khanna launched into the witness and called him racist for noticing this sort of. Again, this is designed specifically to import large populations from places that do not seek to assimilate to American values. And if you notice, then they YELL at you.
- [32:24]
Michael Lucci
Mr. Lucci, a few months ago you tweeted out, quote, Two Chinese Americans accused of attempted bombing at McDell Air Force Base gained U.S. citizenship via birthright. They are not loyal to the USA. There are 1 million and 500,000 more, quote, Chinese Americans essentially born in Sapin, which is a US Territory, and raised in Communist China. Denaturalize them all. I'd like to to offer you an opportunity to correct the record for such a bigoted and xenophobic statement. Do you believe millions of Chinese Americans who gained citizenship through birthright should be denaturalized, or are you simply a racist? Congressman?
- [33:09]
What I'm referring to are Chinese folks who are just born in a US Territory and then go immediately back to China.
- [33:18]
Ben Shapiro
Okay, again, the attempt to treat him as racist is pretty insane. Michael Lucci, he points out he's the only non Chinese person in his household, that he's actually married to a person of Chinese origin.
- [33:32]
Michael Lucci
That policy debate is destroyed when someone is accused of being racist against their own children. It's absurd. It makes zero sense. Policy is policy, but the whole conversation gets destroyed if we just throw the race cart around against people. As I said, my household's a big household. We have eight people. I'm the only one with no Chinese ethnicity in my entire household. So for the Congressman to say that I'm motivated by racism against my own wife, my own children, my own in laws, it's completely absurd and it destroys our ability to come to real policy solutions.
- [34:14]
Ben Shapiro
Ugly stuff from Ro Khanna, obviously. But this goes to the Democratic perspective, which brought about the reaction from the Trump administration, which is that everybody should basically be able to come as citizen no matter what. Zahra Mandani, he's out there talking about how he was terrified his father wouldn't be able to become a citizen and he thought that maybe he'd be arrested or something. I mean, honestly, America would be a much better place if Zoram Dani and his parents had never become citizens. America would be a significantly better place. I do not see what Zoram Dani and his parents have added to the vibrant fabric of America other than hatred of America, socialism, and pro terrorist nonsense.
- [34:50]
Zoran Mamdani
And then my father, last year while I was running for mayor, he had his citizenship interview and I was terrified. I was terrified because I knew that going into that building, we didn't know anymore what it would mean for when he would come out and how he would come out. And so I remember sitting in the, I think it was a pret. A Manger Cafe opposite 26 Federal Plaza, on the phone with the lawyer ready to file a pro se in case something happened to my father.
- [35:27]
Ben Shapiro
Yeah, well, unfortunately our immigration system did not work the way it was supposed to. And that's how you have Zorn Mamzani as mayor of New York. So great job everyone. Now, speaking of the parents of radical leftists, it turns out that the father of Darieliza Avia Chevalier, who is a radical left wing, anti American, soon to be congresswoman from New York, it turns out that her father owns property, is a landlord in Miami. He purchased a condo in Miami for about 92 grand way back in 1998. And he lists units and he rents them. She is a person, by the way, who's called for the suspension of rent and mortgage payments. So great, great job parenting. Dad, you did amazing. You did amazing. So speaking of great rental policy, over in New York, New York City has now enacted a rent freeze.
- [36:20]
Marco Rubio
Yay.
- [36:21]
Ben Shapiro
Congrats. You just raised your own rent, you morons. Because everyone who's in the rent control departments, they're happy. Everybody else, there's now external pressure because you just limited supply and you increase demand. Genius, genius level stuff here from the New Yorkers and H.L. mencken, famous columnists in Baltimore in the early 20th century. He suggested that democracy is the theory that the population knows what's good for it and ought to get it good and hard. Yeah, I mean, that's New York. A New York City panel, according to the New York Times, voted on Thursday to freeze rents for nearly 1 million rent stabilized apartments. The panel known as the Rent Guidelines Board approved the freeze on both one and and two year leases in a seven to one vote, pausing all rental increases on more than 40% of all apartments across the five boroughs. The freeze would apply to leases beginning on or after October 1st. So great job. You just made everything more expensive. You're pretending that you're creating affordability with rent control. Rent control simply limits new development. Why would you possibly develop an apartment building in New York right now? You know your property rights will be violated willy nilly. You'll be unable to increase the rent along with demand. There'll be no incentive to actually build new things. And in fact, if your rent drops below your maintenance cost, then you start burning things down for the insurance Money, which is precisely what happened in the Bronx in the 70s. So every bad idea comes back. They just never, ever die. Well, the communists taking everything over. It turns out that they are not merely communists. They are communists who are very warm toward radical jihadism. Hasan Piker, of course, is the face of the online media centric Mamdani movement. Over the course of the last couple days, he's been lamenting the fact that he says, you know, I wish they stopped calling me a terrorist. It's just mean to call him a terrorist. I mean, you support terrorists. It really is not mean. It's just reality. Here is Hasan Piker playing victim.
- [38:17]
Hasan Piker
I wish they stopped calling me a terrorist. That's what I wish. I wish they stopped calling me a radical. None of these people are radical. They just want healthcare. They want to end American militarism. They want to spend money on roads, on infrastructure, on schooling, on health care rather than bombs.
- [38:38]
Ben Shapiro
Just a reminder. Just a reminder. Hasan Piker has promoted violence and terrorism. Here's a reminder of what Hasan Piker. Stop calling him a terrorist or a terrorist supporter just because he promotes violence and terrorism. Stop that right now.
- [38:52]
Hasan Piker
I'm sick and tired of it. Left wingers, liberals, you need to be showing your opponent's guts on there, okay? You need to be gutting them. You need to be shanking these and letting their. Letting their intestines just ride on stage. What the is this, man? Slice them up. Slice them and dice them. What the is this? You cannot have a bigger layup.
- [39:24]
Unidentified Guest (on Hezbollah)
Hezbollah is a. Is a paramilitary organization that is also a part of the Lebanese parliament.
- [39:31]
Ben Shapiro
Do we like them or no?
- [39:34]
Unidentified Guest (on Hezbollah)
I think as a resistance group, they're pretty successful against Israel. Oh, but everybody hates them. Like everybody in the region. A lot of people don't like them.
- [39:44]
Ben Shapiro
Like, I like what you like.
- [39:46]
Unidentified Guest (on Hezbollah)
I don't have an issue with them. Let's just say
- [39:51]
Ben Shapiro
again, he promotes terrorism at every turn. He's a radical communist, Wears Cartier. This is. And it's taking over the country again, as we've been discussing all week long. It's taken over New York already. It's going to take over all of Los Angeles. It's going to take over areas in Michigan. You're going to have a senator in Michigan who reflects all of the beliefs of Hasan Piker. Literally campaigned with Hasan Piker. Graham Platner, the dude with the Nazi tattoo who also hates America. That guy very likely to be a senator in Maine. But what you are watching is a takeover of American politics by communists who also love Radical jihadis. Well, we here at the Daily Wire felt that we had to fight back against this in every way that we knew how. And that includes on the narrative front. It is kind of incredible that Hollywood has such an awful record of actually labeling America's enemies. Truly an awful record of labeling America's enemies. Hollywood, for years and years and years after 9, 11 refused to make movies in which jihadists were actually the enemy. Today, Hollywood, out of fear of the Chinese markets, refuses to make movies in which the Chinese government is a problem. Red dawn, you'll recall when they made the remake of Red dawn is originally supposed to be the Chinese government attacking the United States. They figured it would piss off the Chinese government and so instead they changed it to the North Koreans. Hollywood refuses to make films and narrative that actually tell the truth about who the enemies of America are. Well, we decided that we had had enough of that and so we have made a film. This is going to melt brains. It is in the Run, Hide Fight universe. So for those of you who are fans of Run, Hide Fight on Daily Wire, it's not a sequel.
- [41:27]
Hasan Piker
It's.
- [41:27]
Ben Shapiro
It's in the universe of Run, Hide Fight. It's titled Run, Hide Fight Infidels. Here's the teaser trailer. We have a terror warning in Northern Virginia.
- [41:38]
Marco Rubio
Radical Islam has designs openly on the West.
- [41:40]
Mint Mobile Advertiser
The FBI thwarted a terror plot on New Year's Eve. Violent attack over the Halloween weekend in Michigan.
- [41:46]
Dallas Sonier
Protests on college campuses showing no signs of stopping
- [41:53]
Tom Homan
SA.
- [42:26]
Ben Shapiro
For those who can't see, that is an ISIS flag flying over an American college campus. This is Run, Hide Fight. Infidels coming soon or already here. Now I'm just going to point out that when we actually made even the teaser trailer, when we said or already here, you know, maybe we're speculating. It's already here, gang. It's already here. And the people who love and make room for jihadism in the United States are already here. They're openly talking it up. They're not hiding. There's literally a candidate in New Jersey who's allegedly a spokesperson for an Al Qaeda member. Okay, that is where we are in America right now. So this movie is a kick ass film. It's a hero story in which a bunch of college students have to band together to take on radical jihadists who take over a college campus after exploiting a pro Hamas encampment. It's the comeback movie for megastar Jonathan Majors that you've heard us talk about and it is just balls to the wall. Awesome. It is great. It is great. Joining me on the line to discuss it is the producer of the film, Dallas Sonier. Dallas, thanks so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it.
- [43:43]
Dallas Sonier
Always great to be here.
- [43:46]
Ben Shapiro
So, first of all, as we've been saying, this is not a sequel. It's part of the Run, Hide, Fight universe. It's the same writer, it's the same director. But what was the basic idea that caused this thing to come to fruition?
- [43:56]
Dallas Sonier
Well, it was great. It was a conversation that happened a couple of months ago with the new Daily Wire CEO Mike Richards, and he said, you know, it'd be great. Run, Hide, Fight, you know, another. Another movie in that franchise. And he actually was the one that thought about the college campus setting. And then we got on the phone with Kyle and talked through it. And then you and I and Kyle did a ton of work on the script and so on and so forth. And then months later we were shooting a movie. It was really that kind of that simple.
- [44:26]
Ben Shapiro
I mean, what makes this thing unique? I mean, I'm not sure I've ever seen a better timed film in terms of Run, Hide Fight. Infidels dropping into the middle of a news cycle that is about radical Islamic terrorism all over the world, an uptick everywhere. A war in Iran, and of course the takeover of major American cities by people who are not only openly sympathetic, but in many cases working hand in glove with jihadist organizations. It really is astonishing. We watched New York get taken over the other night by communists who are openly sympathetic to terrorism. I mean, Darieliza Chevalier, who just won a congressional seat, essentially, she literally was a founder of an organization that called for the extirpation of Western civilization and was openly in support of hamas, literally on October 8, the day after October 7. And she is now going to Congress. And so this movie thing, unlike any movie probably ever, actually looks at the enemies of the United States in clear eyed fashion with regard to the jihadis, without giving any spoilers.
- [45:22]
Dallas Sonier
Yeah.
- [45:23]
Ben Shapiro
How seriously does the movie take all that?
- [45:24]
Dallas Sonier
Oh, I mean, it is the core essence of the movie. I mean, we are, we are basically warning America of the radical Islamic takeover of our college campuses, of our youth, of our major cities. And we're saying enough. And we want to fight back. And as movie makers, this is how we do it with art and with culture and things like that. So I'm not a politician, I'm not in the military, I'm a movie maker. And this is how we do it. So, yeah, the movie is designed as a roadblock obstacle and then obviously a counter Attack to communism, socialism and all of the craziness of radical Islamic takeovers in America right now.
- [46:09]
Ben Shapiro
For those who don't know, I mean, the premise of the film is essentially that a pro Palestine, pro Hamas protest is taken advantage of by jihadis who then take over the campus and red blooded Americans have to fight back. So it's essentially Red dawn, except with jihadis. Again, I think that it is the first depiction maybe in modern Hollywood history of what jihadists actually are like and what they do.
- [46:30]
Podcast Host (Ad Read)
Yeah.
- [46:30]
Ben Shapiro
And that is in and of itself unique. Again, that's a thing that only Daily Wire would produce. It's a thing only Daily Wire would do. And you can see that people are sort of shocked and appalled that somebody would even mention what groups like ISIS do. It really is kind of astonishing, the blowback which has already occurred. I mean, you saw yesterday, the teaser trailer comes out. The blowback has already begun. People very angry that you had mentioned the fact that radical Islamic jihadists are in fact evil and do terrible things. It is kind of astonishing that that should be relatively uncontroversial. It certainly is not.
- [47:00]
Dallas Sonier
This is not a quiet movie. This is a jamming the ice pick in the Matrix movie to try to get people to wake up but also entertain them. Right. I mean, movies have to be entertaining and they have to be great art and things like that. So this movie is like, like something that, that was plucked out of the 80s, whether it's red dawn or toy soldiers or Navy Seals or any of these movies that I loved watching as a kid. And the Daily Wire audience is going to love this movie and we made it for them. I mean, that was really the point. And then of course, the movie is just taking on its own life outside of Daily Wire in the press and things like that. Yes, I love all the controversy surrounding it. I think that's great. I think that's how you release a movie these days. If you look at so many of the successful endeavors over the past two or three years, it's just part of the culture now. And so we're leaning into it and we're not afraid. And certainly, you know, we made a great movie. You and I have seen it and it's awesome and it's just incredible. So when the audience gets to see it, they're going to. Their minds are going to melt and the left is going to go apoplectic.
- [48:09]
Ben Shapiro
Oh, it is. It is a kick ass film. It also is the comeback film for Jonathan Majors who's sort of cast out of Hollywood based on allegations that turned out largely not to be true. And he's coming back to an audacious move for Jonathan Majors. Not only to work with us, obviously, but also to make a movie that, as you say, really is a full scale attack on radical Islamic jihadism and campus craziness and all the rest.
- [48:33]
Dallas Sonier
Yeah, Jonathan Majors is a professing Christian. He is a wonderful human being. He's a great husband to his wife and just a great man. And I really enjoyed working with him on set. He was so generous with the rest of the cast, who's very young. And he took them to dinner, he took them to the gym, he took them on acting lessons. I mean, he was so generous with his time. He was also so focused. I mean, like Marlon Brando, Joaquin Phoenix level focus, Daniel Day Lewis. And I've just never been around anyone that was that sort of dialed in. And I've worked with all the greats, Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Vince Vaughn, all of them. And he was just so connected and so, and he loves the movie so much. He never hesitated on any of the scenes or the lines of dialogue. He's committed to getting behind the release of the movie. Couldn't ask for a better partner and lead actor in Jonathan Majors.
- [49:33]
Ben Shapiro
And then the movie is, folks, you will see, I promise. It is hardcore. This is a hardcore film. And there are things that blow up that there are, there are bullets that, that are fired there, there are helicopter. There's a lot of things going on in, in this film. It is an audacious move. By Jonathan Majors by Daily Wire and by by Dallas Sonier. Again, another entry into the run, hide, fight canon. Kyle Rankin is the writer and the director of it. We could not be more excited. So this is going to be released sometime over the next few months. We're sort of still deciding on on final release date, but I, I believe that there's gonna be a fuller trailer that is gonna be made public inside of the next few, few weeks. That's my understanding.
- [50:09]
Dallas Sonier
Yeah, that's right. We're working on it right now and with the team over here at Daily Wire and they're, they're so excited. Everyone's starting to see bits and pieces of the movie and getting really pumped up about it. So yeah, we're going to bring it to Daily Wire plus here in the next few months and release a trailer in the next few weeks and you know, minds are going to melt even further.
- [50:30]
Ben Shapiro
Mine's Dallas. Sonia, go check out the teaser trailer right now and subscribe at Daily Wire right now. And that way you'll be able to see everything. You'll be able to see behind the scenes. You'll be able to see the film itself. The film itself is going to, as Dallas says, melt some brains. So get ready. Dallas, thanks so much for the time and congrats.
- [50:46]
Dallas Sonier
Thanks for having me.
- [50:48]
Ben Shapiro
Well, it's very interesting to watch as the Democratic Party tries to figure out what to do with the rise of the full scale radical Democratic Socialists of America. Communists. What do they do with these people who hate America? What do they do with the America haters? Some of them are railing against the tide. So former DNC chair Jamie Harrison is literally begging Hasan Piker at this point not to use the Democratic Party quote. If your movement is so strong, why does it keep needing the Democratic Party's ballot line infrastructure, volunteers, donors and voter file to win? Apparently your apparatus isn't strong enough to do it on its own. Fight to make the Democratic Party better, Push it, challenge it. But don't use the Democratic Party as an Uber to get to office and then complain about the ride after you arrive. If you're on the team, be on the team. Why should they be on the team? They've gotten everything they want. Especially because the entire Democratic Party is surrendering to the nut jobs. Surrendering to it. Gavin Newsom, who's willing to say anything to everybody, he has now moved to maybe we should do Medicare for all. Like, yeah, let's, let's do Bernie Sanders Medicare for All.
- [51:47]
Political Commentator (Pragmatic Progressive)
This notion though of Medicare for all I want to go back to because I think it's so important. It's inevitable from my perspective. It's just that the economics, econ, it just doesn't work.
- [51:56]
Podcast Host (Ad Read)
It's.
- [51:56]
Political Commentator (Pragmatic Progressive)
I mean as a private sector guy, I've got a bunch of private employees. I mean as a business, it's not working. Obviously you look at the cost growth in government and that Medicaid debates we're having Medicare and the outcomes, and the outcomes. So dumb as we want to be, the challenge is, and this is the challenge, just purely one of pragmatic political reality. And you're back to being a pragmatic progressive, which I like as well. That frame, how the hell do you do it without taking something away that people have come to enjoy for generations and that's their private health insurance.
- [52:29]
Ben Shapiro
He is going, he is going to get outflanked. That's just the reality. Now he thinks he's going to be able to virtue signal to the left by saying that it's all about power. Power. He's going to. He's going to speak the tough language. It's not going to be enough.
- [52:42]
Political Commentator (Pragmatic Progressive)
I'm done winning arguments. We got it. We got to. We got to win and we got to consolidate power. And again, this book is about power. The sub headline, again, how to Win. I mean, this is it. Wield power.
- [52:52]
Ben Shapiro
Yeah.
- [52:53]
Political Commentator (Pragmatic Progressive)
Without it, it's all bullshit.
- [52:55]
Michael Lucci
Yeah.
- [52:55]
Political Commentator (Pragmatic Progressive)
I mean, it's academic bullshit. And it's frustrating and becoming more and more frustrating.
- [53:01]
Ben Shapiro
Okay, again, that's not going to work. There is a split emerging in the Democratic Party. People who wish to uphold the Democratic Party against the nut jobs and the people who are just going to back the nut jobs because again, more important to defeat Republicans. So, for example, Representative Gregory Meeks, he says this is a New York City problem. It's not going to happen nationally. Oh, really? Oh, really?
- [53:23]
Representative Gregory Meeks
It is a New York City problem that we've got to be focused on because I think it is clear that when you listen to at least some of the statements that have been made that they don't want to be a part of the Democratic Party. They want to divide the Democratic Party. That's not going to happen nationally.
- [53:43]
Ben Shapiro
Okay, so again, some Democrats trying to push back. Governor Josh Shapiro in very purple Pennsylvania. He says that maybe when these people get elected to office, they'll moderate. Nope, nope. The mistake of every idiotic mainstream movement. When these people get responsibility, that will moderate them. Last words of Franz von Papen as he ushered Hitler into office. Here's Governor Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania.
- [54:05]
Governor Josh Shapiro
I think what is important are the people who are making a lot of noise, who are engaging in these performative politics have to now figure out how to deliver results. It's one thing to speak in latitudes during a campaign. It's a whole other thing to actually deliver for people who are genuinely hurting, who genuinely need to see cost of living go down, meaning their ability to make ends meet, you know, go up. Fixing a broken health care system, reining in excess is being able to give people the promise of liberty that we've talked about. I think we as a party need to find our way toward candidates who actually can deliver for people and make their lives better.
- [54:49]
Ben Shapiro
Again, we will find out if that is true. I think it is not. Especially because the Democratic Party, again, they will just end up solidifying behind any Democrat who ends up with the nomination. That is what is happening with Democrats. And Abdul EL Sayed, a terrorist supporter who is running for the Senate seat in Michigan. Democrats are getting behind him no matter what. Because again, more important to grab power than to stand up against the nuts in your own party. Abdul El Sayed has now cut a Blues Clues campaign ad. I kid you not. Let's check it out.
- [55:21]
Abdul El Sayed
Which is why we need money out of politics. Money in your pocket and Medicare for all. Here's the the mail. It never fails. It makes me want to wag my tail when it comes. I want to wail.
- [55:36]
Pramila Jayapal
Mail.
- [55:42]
Abdul El Sayed
Thanks.
- [55:42]
Michael Lucci
Mailbox.
- [55:46]
Abdul El Sayed
We just got a letter. We just got a letter. We just got a letter. I wonder who it's from.
- [55:54]
Ben Shapiro
It looks like my ballot Khamenei.
- [55:56]
Abdul El Sayed
Brought to me by my secretary of State. And with it I can participate in democracy. The first day that I can turn this in is June 25th.
- [56:06]
Ben Shapiro
Does he think his supporters are children
- [56:08]
Abdul El Sayed
by July 21st or I can.
- [56:11]
Ben Shapiro
Children can't vote.
- [56:11]
Abdul El Sayed
Drop it off. Up until election day, which is August
- [56:14]
Ben Shapiro
4th, either he's he's aiming at six year olds or he's aiming at people with the brains of six year olds, which is also possible.
- [56:20]
Dallas Sonier
Votes gonna do.
- [56:21]
Joe Biden (quoted)
We can too.
- [56:30]
Ben Shapiro
It's cute guys. It's really cute and it's fun. It's like when you were watching Nickelodeon as a kid except that that guy loves terrorism. That guy loves terrorism and, and he really, really hates the country. But he can also do a credible impersonation of the weird guy from Blue's Clues. Congrats America. This is where it crazed socialist jihadism spoon fed to you as children's programming. We're doing great. We're doing great. So congrats to the Democrats. Okay? Meanwhile, in terms of bad policy, the bad policy of the administration in Iran continues. Again, there's a bifurcation between Marco Rubio is trying to do and what the vice President is trying to do. So the vice president did an interview with Sorab Omari at Unherd. Sourabhari is sort of an interesting character. I've been friendly with Saurabh in the past. Saurabh has had, shall we say, every ideological evolution possible. He has moved through every single color on the color wheel of ideology. He went from like red to kind of neocon ish to Catholic Integralist. And now he's coming all the way back around not just to Catholic Integralist. He started off as a, as a fairly religious Muslim from my understanding. And now he is coming back to his, his sort of pro Iranian priors. Apparently some of the people who have been advising the vice president include Sorba Mari and Trita Parsi, who's legitimately an essentially a lobbyist for the Iranians in any case, this interview is crazy. In this interview, the Vice President says, quote, one of the things we wanted to come out with is out of the negotiations with the Iranians was, quote, a channel on the Iranian side for reducing conflicts, which we did. They were like, ok, fine, we'll send someone from the IRGC to go hang out in Doha with someone from centcom and that's how we're going to settle a lot of these disputes. Yes, that's precisely what will be great for America. We will coordinate all future military action with the IRGC while they mow down tens of thousands of people and kill the dissidents and shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Excellent negotiations, sir. Just great job. By the way, what's actually happening, the destruction of the Abraham Accords. Because all the Gulf states are now looking and they're saying, you want us to make nice with the Iranians and you're going to walk away and you're going to leave us to their predations and you're going to hand them billions of dollars. What are we supposed to do? So, great job. Helping to destroy the Trump administration's signal achievement in term number one by reaching out to the Iranians and offering them everything in the world right now. Amari says agreement in principle around a new security channel between the US and Iranian militaries was perhaps the biggest breakthrough of the Lake Lucerne Peace Summit. Again, everyone has a phone, so they're trying to make this sound as though this is kind of the equivalent of the red line that existed between the United States and Soviet Russia during the Cold War, where it was, if we were going to launch nuclear weapons on them, we called them up like, guys, we're going to launch nukes at you. And like, hey, hey, hey, don't do it. Or you know that plane that looks like it's a nuclear weapon? It's not. That was designed to prevent nuclear war. The idea that we are supposed to coordinate military action with the Iranians is insane. It's crazy. But Amari, of course, loves it. He says its existence could remake the face of the Middle East. The fact that it's on the table is a testament to what seemed unthinkable a few weeks ago. A comeback for Vance and the Restrainers. By the way, the Restrainers are not people who simply believe that America should be less involved in world affairs. They are people who wish to restrain our allies from protecting themselves. That is what these so called restrainers are. Amari says there's a genuine hunger for a deal that the mullahs cold public statements rarely betray. Oh, so secretly they really want a deal. Sure, they're dunking on us every single day, including, by the way, attacking a ship in the Strait yesterday. But it turns out they really, really want to be our friends. Something quietly momentous was unfolding in the Alps. The quasi normalization of relations between the US And Islamic Republic. That was evident in the human interactions and small courtesies that resulted from delegates being stuck for the better part of 48 hours together. A joke about a malfunctioning elevator. The shared struggle to keep a manic press corps at bay. What the f. So you joke with terrorists about how the elevator's broken and now your friends. Sure, they're still executing everybody and, you know, keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed and incentivizing terror groups to destroy Lebanon and attack Israel, but you do have a shared sympathy over the slow elevator. Great job. Great job. And then he, of course, he equates Laura Loomer and Mark Levin Sarabamari to the Iranian hardliners. I'm always amused when you hear about the Iranian hardliners and we pretend that Muhammad Holabaf is somehow the soft liner and Moshtaba Khomeini is somehow the soft liner in some way. The Arabs, says J.D. vance, appreciate the New Deal because of the conversations they're having with the Iranians, the Emiratis, by far the most hawkish, by far the most pro Israel country in the Gulf Cooperation Council. They're having conversations with the Iranians that have never happened before. Yeah. You know why? Because it turns out that if you turn on them and you betray them and you leave them naked to the predations of the irgc, they're going to do that. That's how that works. So instead of building an alliance against the Iranians, you're attempting to essentially do Obama Part Two. And that means going right back to all of the idiotic priors that dominated foreign policy in the Middle east for decades. In the United States, led by, wait for it, the Qatari Prime Minister, Sheikh Al Thani, a man who is literally in a photo, dictating terms for the Vice President of the United States to type into his laptop here, he was suggesting that actually the key. You won't believe it. You won't believe it. The key to Middle east peace, you won't believe it. Lies in Israel making a Palestinian state. Where have I heard that before? Oh, from every moron in the State Department for the last 70 years. And it turns out it's a bunch of crap, and it always was a bunch of crap. And the Abraham Accords was built in opposition to that very idea, which is why it was successful. But don't worry, Qatar is back with the bad old ideas that made the Middle east unstable in the first place. Great job. Everyone. Says this stability cannot be fully achieved without a just solution for our Palestinian brothers. This will require international efforts. In other words, cram it down. No pressure on the Iranians to stop pressuring Hezbollah. By the way, we hope that the momentum generated between the United States and Iran, between Iran and the region will also encompass the issue of our Palestinian brothers. And the fact that we are treating this Iranian cutout state as some sort of honest interlocutor is nuts. It is not so. Just ridiculous. Okay, well, there is another side to the administration that is preaching something different that makes more sense. This would be the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. He says, actually, actually, if you would like peace in the region, we need Iran, not to fund terrorism. I know, sounds crazy, right? I thought that was the entire premise of this war. Here's the Secretary of State.
- [63:18]
Marco Rubio
Ultimately, you're not gonna have peace and stability in this region as long as there are non state actors operating within the boundaries and borders of sovereign countries and being funded by Iran.
- [63:29]
Ben Shapiro
And the Vice President and the Secretary of State was asked about the apparent gaps between his take on the Middle east and the Vice President's take on the Middle East. Again, the President does this a lot where he sort of has various lines being retailed by the administration and then he sort of sticks and moves and chooses between them. The problem is when you show an unstable face in foreign negotiations, makes it very difficult to get to a final actual answer on anything. So here is Rubio. How wide is the divide between you and the Vice President?
- [63:59]
Marco Rubio
On what issue?
- [64:00]
Governor Josh Shapiro
On any.
- [64:01]
Marco Rubio
This administration. Everyone here is aligned behind the President of the United States. Every single one of us. The President of the United States makes the foreign policy of our. Our country and our job. We obviously give advice, we give counsel, we give opinions. But when the President of the United States is the one who is elected by the people of our country to conduct our foreign policy, the President makes these decisions. And all of us on his team, every single one of us, works in lockstep very closely with one another to execute on the President's foreign policy. Everything we do is because the President has made a decision that it's going to be done. And one of the things I'm very proud of, I can't speak for every element of our government because I'm not in involved in other aspects of our government. But one of the things that I'm the proudest of is that when it comes to foreign policy and national security, we have no drama, we have no games. We have a group of people that work very well together and closely to execute on the President's directives.
- [64:51]
Ben Shapiro
So again, I'm happy with that. If the president's directive is clear, I'll just say at this moment, Iran seems to have the upper hand. And all of the propaganda that's now coming out from Team Vance about how wonderful it's going to be when Iran was is playing a key role in Middle Eastern affairs. Brother, that's a. That. That is an argument that I'm gonna have to see tested by reality because historically speaking, that is not how things go when Iran increases its influence in the region. Alrighty. Coming up, we'll get to the insane story of the week. Plus, Europeans are apparently very upset at Americans because we use our ACs or something. Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become one. Use code Shapiro checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.