On Thursday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about a study finding that 96% of evening impeachment coverage at ABC, CBS, and NBC is anti-Trump. Video and partial transcript below: 
So Trump says this is all total B.S., cuts to the heart of the matter. How is the mainstream media covering it? Well, here&#8217;s how CBS News is covering it &#8230; [plays clip].
And there we have it. Day one of the first public hearings, in terms of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, are now in the history books. Some devastating testimony today from two of America&#8217;s most respected diplomats who have served both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Yeah, it was devastating testimony for the Democrats. It was devastating testimony for them. But this is what they do — I told you at the top of the show. What they&#8217;re going to do is, regardless of how bad the impeachment inquiry goes and the proceedings go for Democrats — and you heard it, you heard it with your own two ears, it&#8217;s going very badly for them. But it doesn&#8217;t matter because the fancy people in suits and ties will go on television and tell you it&#8217;s all really, really bad for the president. They&#8217;ll use it to overturn the election. At the very least, because they&#8217;re not going to be able to throw him out of office, they&#8217;re going to use it to hamper him in 2020. 
There is this <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-nets-aim-destroy-trump-96-negative-news">NewsBusters</a> analysis — Media Research Center &#8230; did a study of the network news story about ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts since 2017. What they found is that the news shows cover Trump with negative spin 96% of the time. How did they calculate that? The way they do it is they take all explicitly evaluative statements about Trump or his administration from reporters, or anchors, or non-partisan sources — so we&#8217;re not talking about when the talking heads come on, the pundits, and the commentators, and they have their own perspective, we’re talking about the people who are supposed to be objective. They then take out the partisan sources, they take out all the neutral statements and they just look at evaluative statements: 96% of them are negative, and it&#8217;s all about impeachment. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_poS9075WOo?start=1488" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
They&#8217;re dedicating more than three-fifths of all administration news coverage on the networks to this impeachment nonsense. They are also using secret sources, because if they use real sources, they would be shown to be liars. So out of 172 news reports, the strong majority of them, 59%, relied on unnamed sources for their so-called facts about impeachment. It&#8217;s B.S., it&#8217;s totally bogus and they are counting on this vagueness — on people&#8217;s eyes glossing over to put it past the American people.
Impeachment is a terrible idea. We&#8217;ve used it now four times — threatened it. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump. Nobody has ever been removed from office as president through impeachment. Johnson was acquitted, Nixon resigned before he could be impeached, Bill Clinton was acquitted. Now we get to Donald Trump.
I think it&#8217;s a very good thing in this country that no president has ever been removed explicitly through the process of impeachment. What that does, what the impeachment process does, is reduces the role of the executive, which is a co-equal branch of government, and it makes it subservient to the legislature — kind of like what we have in the United Kingdom, a parliamentary style government. The Founding Fathers of this country, in their wisdom, did not give us that sort of government because that sort of government is chaotic and less representative of the American people and far more radical and far less conservative. 
We need those checks and balances, and you should not be able to throw out a president just because you dislike him politically. Even if there&#8217;s evidence of some sort of crime, there is a very high threshold. You&#8217;re not going to ever impeach the president over a parking ticket or for jaywalking. It&#8217;s got to really be a political crime, it&#8217;s got to be a high crime or misdemeanor. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

Impeachment Hearing &#8211; Washington, DC

KNOWLES: Democrats Have Nothing On Trump, So The Media Swoop In To Save Them

On Thursday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan weighs in on the coverage of the impeachment hearing. Video and partial transcript below: 
Congratulations to the Democrats! There&#8217;s no avoiding my talking about this stupid thing. I mean, Democrats went on TV, smeared themselves with excrement, set themselves on fire, blew themselves up and then declared victory — it was embarrassing. 
The Wall Street Journal is a funny paper because their opinion section leans toward the Right — they don&#8217;t like Donald Trump — but their news section is really trending Left and they hate Trump. They have this banner headline, “Public Hearing Surfaces New Claim,” I&#8217;m holding it up. You can see it goes right across the head — The Wall Street Journal rarely does that. 
So now I was in journalism, I was a news writer on radio. I was a newspaper man for a brief period — you have a big banner headline like this, “Public Hearing Surfaces New Claim.” What do you think the lede is going to be? Because the lede is the first thing that you write. It&#8217;s always the big thing — the grabber — the lede should then be the new claim, right? It says: 
<blockquote>President Trump and a summer phone call asked about politically advantageous investigations&#8230;</blockquote>
We&#8217;re going to take a look at that claim — what this thing is that they’ve got a banner headline over because it is hilarious. I mean, listen, this is a show where I don&#8217;t even have to write satire. It is that funny. So the whole thing, again, they had two witnesses, right? William Taylor, the acting ambassador to the Ukraine, and George Kent, who is a senior State Department official. These are their two star witnesses, remember, they wanted to lead off — it was going to be a blockbuster. It was going to be really powerful. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BTtQ9Jig1Vo?start=447" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
John Ratcliffe, one of the Republican congressmen and a good questioner, this is the way he summed up their testimony at the end of it, this is his question:
<blockquote>RATCLIFFE: In this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?</blockquote>
They haven’t got anything. They keep saying [paraphrasing] “Well, we&#8217;re not taking sides here,” [but] the information, despite what they tell you, is not new — most of the information was not new. They heard rumors, they heard ideas that Rudy Giuliani was running around behind the scenes trying to get investigations into the Democrats — reaching out to Ukraine for dirt on Clinton, and on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden&#8217;s corruption in taking this job with his corrupt gas company, this corrupt energy company, Burisma, while he had no expertise, was being paid massive amounts of money and his father was vice president. How did that happen? 
They keep telling us, the newspapers, they keep saying there&#8217;s no indication of corruption here. The very fact of it is an indication of corruption — as they reported, as the mainstream media reported at the time. But the other subtext of this, and this is important before we get to the hilarity, it&#8217;s really important to point out that these are career diplomats with an investment in Ukraine being important to the United States and this anti-Russian policy that has been in place since Reagan, basically. This is this anti-Russian policy. 
Now, Vladimir Putin is a gangster, and Russia is a gangster-ocracy. But the fact is, our main problem coming up is China. And eventually — I&#8217;m just telling you this, this is not predicting the future because this is just true — eventually, we are going to have to work with Russia against China, because China is a powerhouse, [and] Russia is a failed state. It is a gangster-ocracy, it has no money. Putin is very good at organizing big shows of force, and he&#8217;s very good at playing with other gangsters like the Iranians and all this. You know, gangsters love each other, they are not a major threat. 
These guys in the bureaucracy don&#8217;t like the fact that Trump knows this, and he is not playing Ukraine. They keep saying everything leads back to Russia. Screw Russia! Really, Russia is a failed state. They don&#8217;t have — their economy is gone. The only place they&#8217;re getting money from is the Germans setting up oil [pipelines] with them. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

fire flame

KLAVAN: Democrats Declare Victory After Setting Themselves On Fire

2020 Election

Impeachment

On Thursday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the New York Times and its failed attempt to draw interest in an unremarkable impeachment hearing. Video and partial transcript below: 
We begin with the news of the day, which is all the fallout from [Wednesday’s] bombshell testimony. So much bombshell.
So here is the way that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/bill-taylor-impeachment-hearing.html">New York Times</a> is covering this thing: Their headline says, “Behind a Star Witness, Democrats Take Their Impeachment Case to the Public.”
<blockquote>Their goal is to transform what might seem like an abstract debate over foreign policy into high crimes and misdemeanors in the public mind as Republicans argue there is no case for impeachment.
William Taylor was the witness the Democrats had hoped Robert Mueller would be but was not — the image, at least, of a wise, fatherly figure with Kevlar credibility expressing restrained but unmistakable disapproval of what he found when he turned over the rock.</blockquote>
Objective media coverage trigger so much journalism. 
<blockquote>House Democrats led off their highly anticipated impeachment hearings on Wednesday with a figure projecting probity, a combat veteran turned career diplomat who narrated with a deep baritone voice reminiscent of Walter Cronkite&#8217;s what he saw as the corruption of American foreign policy to advance President Trump&#8217;s personal political interests. 
It was not clear that minds were changed.</blockquote>
Well, shouldn’t you lead with that? Isn’t that the question: Is whether any minds were changed or whether the testimony itself changed anything or offered anything that was bombshell and new, as opposed to, “He appeared to be a gray fox, this William Taylor fellow, patriotic, stolid man. This was a hero of the republic!”
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MqYV2AnqgMU?start=27" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
We&#8217;ve heard the “hero of the republic” routine before from the media; didn&#8217;t change anything. “James Comey, hero of the republic! Andrew McCabe, hero of the Republic! Vindman, hero of the Republic!” And now it&#8217;s William Taylor, hero of the Republic. 
Now, listen. You look at his public service — the guy is, in fact, a hero of the republic for his public service. But that does not mean that he testified as to anything impeachable yesterday. And yet, the media are making this out to be really about the optics, and that, in the end, really sort of betrays the agenda. The agenda here is that this is all about the optics and not about anything new. Nothing new has actually happened here. That&#8217;s the dirty little secret. 
We’re going to go through the testimony [Wednesday], and nothing new, no new ground was broken. Instead, it was all the same ground that we&#8217;ve heard before, sort of trod over repeatedly. So in terms of substance, I don&#8217;t think the American people are going to hear anything new that changes their mind. But in terms of optics, the Democrats are hoping that if they bring out a bunch of gravelly-voiced, very somber speakers who have long histories in American foreign policy, then this will somehow turn the American public against Trump. Well, if people cared about that, Trump wouldn&#8217;t be president. 
Let&#8217;s face this thing. Donald Trump was not elected because people had a ton of respect for America&#8217;s institutions. He was elected, specifically, because people did not have a ton of respect in America&#8217;s institutions, and putting out somebody with Walter Cronkite&#8217;s voice isn&#8217;t going to change any of that, just on a purely political level. 
The New York Times says:
<blockquote>It was not clear that minds were changed. Certainly they were not inside the room, and most likely not elsewhere on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and Democrats were locked into their positions long ago. Nor were there any immediate signs that the hearing penetrated the general public. While major television networks broke into regular programming to carry it live, there was little sense of a riveted country putting everything aside to watch a la Watergate.</blockquote>
Okay, so then what are we talking about? I love this line; this is my favorite line from the New York Times; it&#8217;s just spectacular. 
<blockquote>But whether or not voters were watching, history certainly was.</blockquote>
What the F is that supposed to mean? History was watching — like seriously, what does that mean? History is watching everything! History is watching you on the toilet. If by “history is watching,” you mean that history is something that happens and then people later read about it, that could be anything! It could be — well, I mean, if history was watching, that changes everything. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

The New York Times Co. Post An 82 Percent Decline In 2nd Quarter Profi

SHAPIRO: The NYT Fawns Over Its Latest Hero Of The Republic

Ben Shapiro

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the Democrats’ public relations goal during the impeachment hearing. Video and partial transcript below: 
Everybody knows where this is going. The Democrats are going to vote to impeach President Trump in the House, and then the Republicans are going to vote to acquit in the Senate. It&#8217;s that simple. That&#8217;s where this is going.
[The question] is whether there is some sort of new bombshell that is dropped; and, given the witness testimony that we expect, the answer is probably not. The only other question here is whether Democrats are going to be capable of sinking President Trump’s sort of public relations stance. Are you going to see the support for impeachment rise just because there is so much bad press surrounding impeachment and because President Trump continues to insist, against pretty much all the evidence, that the phone call with Ukraine was absolutely perfect — nothing wrong with it, absolutely 100% what Abraham Lincoln would have done. 
The reason that&#8217;s not a smart strategy, honestly, in terms of public relations — in terms of impeachment, it doesn’t really matter what his strategy is, what&#8217;s going to be is what&#8217;s going to be. But in terms of public relations, the reason that&#8217;s not a smart strategy is the same reason it is not a brilliant idea to go out at the beginning of your presidency and say we are going to have 5% growth every year for the rest of my tenure. The reason it&#8217;s not smart to say that is because if you come in at 4%, which is great, then everybody goes, “Oh, well you said five and you completely missed the boat.”
Well, if you say that everything with Ukraine was absolutely 100% perfect, unbelievable, and then people are like, “Well, it doesn’t look that perfect to me,” it makes them more suspicious of your entire claim. That is why it is a bad public relations strategy. As I&#8217;ve been saying from the beginning, the president is not his own best lawyer. But of course, [Wednesday] is when the public impeachment hearings begin, and all of these hearings are basically going to repeat the testimony that we saw behind closed doors. There are no real surprise witnesses here, Democrats have not approved many of the witnesses the Republicans want. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aAGtLcNG0IA?start=24" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Yesterday, I talked a little bit about the witnesses that Republicans wanted. President Trump had put out a list compiled by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who is currently sitting with the House Intelligence Committee — sorta been swapped in, sort of a ringer brought in to do some of the questioning because he&#8217;s good at this sort of thing — and Jordan had released a list of the witnesses that Republicans would like to see. 
On that list were people like Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, because Jordan wanted to ask, “Okay, well, was there something nefarious going on in Ukraine?” And if there was something nefarious going on in Ukraine, or suspicious with Hunter Biden, Why is it illegitimate of Trump to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate all of that? 
Apparently, they also wanted to bring in the whistleblower. Democrats have been quite reticent to bring forward the whistleblower. Why? Well, because they understand that there is pretty good information the whistleblower is a Democratic operative — that the whistleblower is somebody who&#8217;s a lifelong Democrat, who works from the Obama administration, who is good — or at least close, relatively speaking, with Vice President Joe Biden, who is close with James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. And because of that, the Democrats are concerned that if this person is brought forward in question, it&#8217;s going to turn out this person was coordinating with the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, that this whole thing was put together behind closed doors.
Now, that would not, in and of itself, debunk claims made about Trump and Ukraine. But it would go to motive, and Democrats understand that would be a bad public relations move for them to allow that testimony, because the first thing that would happen is that Trump would say “witch hunt,” and most Americans would say, “Yeah, kind of.” Unless the crime is serious enough that we actually believe it overcomes that, that it was not a partisan thing. It was actually just a “this is a danger to the country” thing, that&#8217;s going to be the Republican plays. 
So it&#8217;s kind of weird, it&#8217;s sort of parallel. On the one side, the Republicans are going to claim, and this is really what it&#8217;s going to come down to, Senator John Kennedy finally coming around to adopting the only real defense to Trump&#8217;s activity, which is that it comes down to intent. And on the democratic side, the American people are going to have to decide Democrats&#8217; intent. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. 
</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Amb. William Taylor And Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State George Kent Testify At Impeachment Hearing

SHAPIRO: I’m Not Taking The Public Impeachment Hearings Super Seriously. Here’s Why.

Adam Schiff

Donald Trump

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about Elizabeth Warren pandering to the tiny intersectional group BlackWomxnFor after they endorsed Warren for president. Video and partial transcript below: 
All right, the race for president is over folks. Liz Warren, she&#8217;s won it. She hasn&#8217;t just won the nomination, she&#8217;s won the whole presidency. Trump can pack his bags, and she can start measuring the drapes because Liz Warren has received the endorsement of what she describes as the “backbone of our democracy,” a group with 3,000 Twitter followers called “BlackWomxnFor.” Here is their announcement:
<blockquote>Despite pervasive attacks on our communities, our identities and our lives. 
Black trans and cis women, femmes, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary folk remains at the forefront of each and every social movement to hold this country accountable. 
We are progressive black leaders who are not impressed by political theater. We know that big things happen when black women come together and take our own space and the political process.
And though no one person could hold all our aspirations in the hopes for a president, there is one leader who we believe will work with us….
That candidate is Senator Elizabeth Warren. She has a track record of taking on the predatory policies that harm our communities. We&#8217;ve come together as a collective voice and we hope to encourage others, especially black women and gender non-conforming folks, to join us. 
We&#8217;re all in for Warren, and if you are too, go to BlackWomenFor dot org, sign the endorsement statement, and join us.</blockquote>
There it is, the election&#8217;s over. Who are the BlackWomxn? The wimixin. It&#8217;s just a Twitter account, just has 3,000 followers. It&#8217;s not a lot of followers in terms of political accounts, but in the age of identity politics, this group has the absolute audacity to pretend to speak for all black women and some black men — because they&#8217;re saying trans women, which is really just men — and gender nonconforming people, whatever that means. 
So when you add all those people together, by a conservative estimate, you&#8217;re talking about 19 million Americans, and you&#8217;ve got a Twitter account of 3,000 people claiming to speak for them, black women, and Elizabeth Warren was happy to take it and go along with the pretense. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qPaW2G_vXb4?start=1625" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
By the way, Elizabeth Warren has very little black support. When you just look at the polling numbers, she&#8217;s not doing that well. She&#8217;s not as bad as Bernie, but Joe Biden has much higher levels of black support. So Elizabeth Warren goes to this one identity politics group and they say, [paraphrasing] “Oh, no, the black womxn actually were for Elizabeth Warren now,” and she plays along with it because it&#8217;s politically advantageous to her.
Elizabeth Warren tweeted out, quote, “Thank you BlackWomxnFor. Black trans and cis women, gender nonconforming and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don&#8217;t take this endorsement lightly. I&#8217;m committed to fighting alongside you for the big structural change our country needs.&#8221;
Black, trans and cis women, gender nonconforming and non binary people are the backbone of our democracy. You might be surprised to hear that if you are a Hispanic woman, you&#8217;re not the backbone of our democracy, according to Elizabeth Warren. Hispanic women, nope, sorry, they&#8217;re less important to our democracy than black trans cisgender women, gender nonconforming, nonbinary people, according to Elizabeth Warren. Obviously white people, much less important. Native American people less important. Black men, according to Elizabeth Warren, less important to our democracy than black trans cisgender women, gender nonconforming, non binary people. 
Now, does Elizabeth Warren really think this? No, because if she thought that she wouldn&#8217;t be running for president. She would, instead, vote for a black trans or cisgender woman, gender nonconforming or non binary people. But identity politics makes people lose their mind, especially on the Left, but on the right-wing, too. makes people lose their mind and say very silly and stupid things such as this. If Elizabeth Warren really believes this, the most important people to our democracy were black women, she would drop out of the race and vote for Kamala Harris. She obviously doesn&#8217;t think that because, obviously, one&#8217;s skin color is not the most important aspect of their identity. Far from it. Ones competency to be president of the United States is not determined by skin color.
Elizabeth Warren knows that, even though she says she has high cheekbones and is therefore likely Native American. She&#8217;s been playing, this woman&#8217;s been playing the most absurd side of identity politics her entire life. This kind of mindless politics, racial politics especially, is making us all very stupid and it&#8217;s making us all very vacuous. What it is doing is removing the contemplative and reasonable aspect from politics, and it is just leaving us with interests and sentiment — just basically brutal people clubbing each other over the heads with their own irreconcilable interests, and gussying it all up with sentiments, saccharin, sentimentality like “the backbone of our democracy.” 
I guarantee you, if a Twitter group called HispanicWomxnFor endorsed Elizabeth Warren, she would say that they were the backbone of the democracy. It&#8217;s just so petty.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963">Listen to full episodes of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-448-the-iron-curtain-between-left-and-right-1">Watch &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on-demand!</a>

Elizabeth Warren

KNOWLES: It’s True. The ‘Backbone’ Of American ‘Democracy’ Just Secured Liz Warren The Presidency.

On Monday, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is a constitutional attorney by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nftdgUFTk58">joined</a> “Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler” on One America News Network to discuss former Trump administration Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley&#8217;s bombshell revelation, in her new book, that former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson allegedly attempted to recruit her to deliberately undermine and thwart various aspects of the president&#8217;s foreign policy agenda.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nikki-haley-reveals-john-kelly-rex-tillerson-tried-to-recruit-her-to-save-america-from-donald-trump">reported</a> on Monday: &#8220;Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Haley claimed according <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nikki-haley-reveals-tillerson-kelly-privately-discussed-resisting-trump-it-was-offensive">to Fox News</a>, were working on a &#8216;resistance&#8217; group within the White House and tried to recruit her as a front-line member. &#8230; Haley [said] that the pair &#8216;confided in me that when they resisted the president, they weren’t being insubordinate, they were trying to save the country&#8217; and that &#8216;Tillerson went on to tell me the reason he resisted the president’s decisions was because, if he didn’t, people would die.'&#8221;
Wheeler and Hammer discussed the political and legal ramifications of Haley&#8217;s revelations, with Hammer first pointing out that the insubordination here is not from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-the-deep-state-is-very-very-real">&#8220;Deep State&#8221;</a> — but from the &#8220;very, very Shallow State&#8221;:
<blockquote>This is actually not the Deep State — this is the very, very shallow State. This is the White House chief of staff and the U.S. secretary of state, for God&#8217;s sake. These are not unelected 24-, 25-year-old &#8230; Ivy League college grads working deep in the bowels of the NSA or CIA. This is the chief of staff to the president of the United States and the lead foreign diplomat for the most powerful country in the world. This is as shallow as the Shallow State gets. But you know what, I&#8217;m assuming Nikki Haley is telling the truth — I have no reason to disbelieve her — so first of all, good for her for actually standing up for the president of the United States here.</blockquote>
Hammer continued to explain why the actions Haley revealed were not just immoral due to rank insubordination, but are also actually unconstitutional:
<blockquote>Let&#8217;s break this down a little bit, legally. The Constitution is extraordinarily clear on this. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii">Article II, Section 1</a> says &#8220;[t]he executive power&#8221; shall be vested in a president of the United States. Not vested in the entire executive branch — that&#8217;s it, it&#8217;s [vested] in the president of the United States.
So let&#8217;s ask, what is &#8220;the executive power?&#8221; Well, we have great scholarship on this. There is a <a href="https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-executive-power-over-foreign-affairs">famous 2001 law review</a> article by legal scholars Sai Prakash and Mike Ramsey that looks back and determines that the term &#8220;executive power,&#8221; as used by Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, was a well-known legal turn of phrase that encompassed most of the foreign affairs power. So let&#8217;s put two and two together. The foreign affairs power is expressly vested in the Constitution of the United States in a president to the United States. It is unconstitutional for subversive bureaucrats, no matter how high or how deep they are, to undermine the president on this.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<iframe title="The Deep State" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nftdgUFTk58?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN screen grab 11.11.19

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: The Deep AND Shallow States Are Both Out For Trump

Constitution

Foreign Policy

John Kelly

Nikki Haley

Rex Tillerson

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about the media’s plan to get the American people on board with impeachment. Video and partial transcript below: 
The MRC, the Media Research Council, they do that wonderful <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-nets-aim-destroy-trump-96-negative-news">Newsbusters</a> site that I like so much. They write this:
<blockquote>With virtually no chance Senate Republicans will vote to remove President Trump from office, House Democrats’ drive for impeachment is more likely aimed at creating a deluge of negative daily headlines hoping to cripple Trump going into next year&#8217;s election. If that is indeed Democrats’ goal, then the three broadcast networks are doing everything they can to help achieve this partisan objective.
Overwhelmingly negative: MRC analysts have reviewed all coverage of President Trump in his and his administration on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts since 2017. Following the beginning of the impeachment inquiry on September 24, this coverage has been even more hostile than normal: Out of 684 evaluative comments included in these broadcasts, a whopping 96 percent have been negative, vs. a meager four percent that have been positive.
All About Impeachment: TV&#8217;s fascination with Democrats’ impeachment push has crowded out nearly all other news about the administration. During the six weeks since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the start of the inquiry (September 24 through November 5), the ABC, CBS, andNBC evening newscasts churned out 398 minutes of coverage to the Ukraine scandal, or more than three-fifths of all administration news during this period (645 minutes).</blockquote>
Here&#8217;s the thing, so now we know everything is negative, and Trump&#8217;s successes vanish. This is the important thing: If Trump is a success, which he so often is, or if the Democrats turned out to be lying, which they so often are, that just disappears. 
Remember when Adam Schiff was going to bring the whistleblower in to testify and then suddenly it turned out that the whistleblower had arranged everything with Schiff before they got started? Schiff realized, [paraphrased] “Oh, if I bring him in to testify, they can ask questions of him,” [and] the story does just disappears. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V5tM2PYxJiM?start=1095" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
So now impeachment starts tomorrow, the public hearings start tomorrow. Now, this is what they’re talking about — remember I called it “Impeachment: The Movie,” because all they&#8217;re talking about is how can we convince people, and the press is basically piling on. The press is working with Adam Schiff, [thinking] “How can we shoot this movie, how can we shoot this story so it really affects voters?” 
By the way, they know now, they&#8217;re starting to realize, it’s not going to happen. It&#8217;s just not going to happen because they haven&#8217;t got anything, but here — just to show you because they do it openly, it&#8217;s amazing — here is Brian Stelter with Ana Cabrera on CNN, wondering how they can shoot this movie, how they can tell this story, so you give a rat&#8217;s what Donald Trump did in regards to Ukraine.
<blockquote>CABRERA: How important is this week in terms of getting the American people invested and interested early on? 
STELTER: Well, this is the first Internet impeachment, right? When you were at the Clinton White House, Joe, the Internet was mostly a text media, most people weren&#8217;t really online yet, there were no smartphones. So this is the first time we&#8217;re gonna have an impeachment process that is clipped and condensed and distorted and remixed in all of these ways and shared on social media. The reality is most people will not watch live, although many CNN viewers will, most people end up watching clips and then hearing about it later in the day as it&#8217;s being digested, whatever is said at the hearings. 
I think that&#8217;s really important. You know, both Democrats and Republicans are going to be trying to control that messaging war. I also think episode one, so to speak, matters a lot. And I hate to say that because we&#8217;re talking about basic democracy at risk here, but from a television perspective, Democrats have to come out strong in that first episode. For the same reason that when we&#8217;re watching something on Netflix or listening to a podcast, we only choose to keep listening if we&#8217;re interested in episode one. So I think the Democrats know that, but I&#8217;ll be interested to see what kind of show they put on on Wednesday morning trying to hook people.</blockquote>
Even Soledad O&#8217;Brien, who used to work at CNN, said that was shameful, that Brian Stelter should be ashamed of himself. But if I may ask you, keep these three things in your head, okay. Three things in your head: Overwhelmingly negative coverage, I mean so negative, it&#8217;s absurd. Like 94% — what was it, 96% — unbelievably negative coverage. [Two], the past disappears when it&#8217;s pro-Trump, which has been pretty consistently pro-Trump. We&#8217;re at peace where the economy is doing well, people have jobs, so things are actually going pretty well. 
So the past vanishes, that is number two, and number three: It’s a show being organized between Adam Schiff and the press, they are putting on a show meant to convince you that this is an important thing. As I’ve said again and again, I think Donald Trump is 100% right on this. It’s nonsense, it is a cover-up, it is absolute nonsense. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Rep. Adam Schiff And Actor Alyssa Milano Join SAG-AFTRA Discussion On Deepfakes

KLAVAN: Impeachment: The Movie. Brought To You By Adam Schiff And The Mainstream Media.

Media

Media Bias

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about how the sports media complex only allows politics in sports when it comes from the Left. Video and partial transcript below: 
So there is a rule in sports media. The rule is that if you are on the Left and you want to talk politics, then you are a hero; If you&#8217;re not on the Left and you to talk politics, you get fired. 
That is the rule in sports media. We&#8217;ve talked about this — my friend Clay Travis, who is a lifelong registered Democrat as far as I&#8217;m aware, and he fully agrees that the sports media are extraordinarily biased to the Left. Like more so, statistically speaking, than the news media, actually. This is how you end up with these two juxtaposed stories: 
In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/deadspin-sports.html">The New York Times</a>, an editorial by a guy named Barry Petchesky, who is the former deputy editor of Deadspin — [which] had turned into this wild Left outlet that had almost nothing to do with sports, they spent their days ripping on Ted Cruz until Ted Cruz owned them — [Petchesky] has a piece called “I Was Fired from Deadspin for Refusing to ‘Stick to Sports.’”
<blockquote>Two weeks ago, I was fired as acting editor in chief of Deadspin, where I’d worked since 2009. The entire staff resigned, following me out the door after we refused a new company mandate to &#8220;stick to sports.&#8221; Jim Spanfeller, installed as chief executive of G/O Media by the private equity firm that bought the company seven months ago, called me into his office, pointed to some offending stories on our home page and had me escorted from the building.
This is the first time I&#8217;m speaking up about my firing, and my stance remains the same as in the countless meetings with management where I explained and insisted that sports don&#8217;t end when the players head back to the locker room.
We refused to &#8220;stick to sports,&#8221; because we know that sports is everything and everything is sports: It&#8217;s the N.B.A. kowtowing to its Chinese business interests; it&#8217;s pro sports leagues attempting to become shadow justice systems for publicity reasons; it&#8217;s the opioid epidemic roiling N.F.L. locker rooms at least as hard as anywhere in Appalachia, even as the league refuses to relax its marijuana policies; it&#8217;s racist fan chants chasing black players off the pitch in Italian soccer matches; it&#8217;s Washington Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki wearing a &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; cap at the White House. (These last few stories occurred in the past week and so were not covered on Deadspin; the &#8220;stick to sports&#8221; diktat forced the outlet to ignore the biggest sports stories in the world.)
Reporting sports with integrity requires knowing that there&#8217;s no way to wall off games from the world outside.</blockquote>
This guy&#8217;s a hero! I mean, it doesn&#8217;t matter that Deadspin was basically bankrupt, which is why a private equity firm had to buy them, and reinvigorate them and change everything out. But the idea here is that if you speak about politics from the Left in the sports world, then you are a hero of the republic.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pp0DgVLogMs?start=2919" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This guy Petchesky, he said:
<blockquote>Deadspin was the voice of the long-suffering fan, finding the humor and the heartbreak in everything in the world of sports. It was the fan wondering why he was paying $200 to go to a football game to watch a team whose owner would rather pocket profit than pay to improve the roster. It was also the fan troubled by the culture and politics of sports, the fan who couldn&#8217;t help noticing that the larger issues of the real world spilled onto the field.</blockquote>
Okay, so New York Times gives that guy an op-ed, and we&#8217;re all supposed to lament the return of Deadspin to pure sports. Then, there&#8217;s Don Cherry. 
So Don Cherry is a longtime hockey analyst for the NHL, and he was on SportsNet and he commented on SportsNet on the fact that it was Remembrance Day in Canada. Now, on Remembrance Day — I’ve been there, and everyone wears a red poppy in remembrance of the Canadian soldiers who fell during World War I — and he was upset because he said who&#8217;s walking around the streets of Toronto, and he saw people who he assumed were immigrants who were not wearing the red poppy. Here&#8217;s what Don Cherry said:
<blockquote>CHERRY: I live in Mississauga, nobody wears — very few people wear a poppy. Downtown Toronto, forget it downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy. &#8230; Now you go to the small cities and you know those, the rows and rows, you people love — they come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppies or something like that. These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada; these guys paid the biggest price. </blockquote>
Okay, so he said this and, you know, might not be wel-articulated, but he is entitled to his opinion unless he happens to be on the anti-immigration Right, at which point he gets fired. Don Cherry was indeed fired from SportsNet. SportsNet President Bart Yabsley said, quote, “Sports brings people together — it unites us, not divides us. Following further discussions with Don Cherry after Saturday night&#8217;s broadcast, it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down. During the broadcast, he made divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what we stand for.”
I mean, you could just say that, right? You could just have that debate, theoretically. But the point here is that the media will lament if Deadspin is told not to do politics; but if Don Cherry is told not to do politics, then that is SportsNet acting just as a wonderful diverse company should. 
You see the same thing at ESPN. At ESPN, they will cover Colin Kaepernick kneeling for years on end, but if Mike Ditka says something they don&#8217;t like because it happens to be conservative, he says something about how he doesn’t like Barack Obama or something, they&#8217;ll fire him. He&#8217;s gone, end of Mike Ditka. You see that with Curt Schilling, too. Curt Schilling can&#8217;t appear on the network because [he] once tweeted that al-Qaeda was bad and compared al-Qaeda to the Nazis, which, of course, you&#8217;re not allowed to do even though al-Qaeda is kind of like the Nazis.
So just gonna point out the double standard in sports media — one of the reasons why sports circulation is declining. The answer to this probably is to separate off politics from sports again, or if you are going to not separate off politics from sports, then you should, in fact, allow the same sort of freedom of opinion to reign as you would in the political sphere. Don Cherry wouldn’t have been fired for saying what he said on CNN, so if politics and sports are not separate, then let a thousand voices be heard. If politics in sports are separate, well, then supplementing it when left-wing political hacks start hijacking sports websites for their own political agenda. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

New York, NY &#8211; Nov 1: An employee of the website Deadspin show

SHAPIRO: Left-Wing Sports Coverage Pushed Deadspin Into A Death Spiral

Leftism

Progressivism

Sports

On Monday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about the history of Veterans Day and plays a recording of the minute the gunfire stopped at the end of World War I. Video and partial transcript below: 
Let&#8217;s talk about Veterans Day, which used to be Armistice Day until the 50s and is still in Britain, where I lived in Britain for many years. And in Britain, they wear those little poppies, which is part of a poem that was written about the poppy fields that the poppies that grew up fertilized by the bodies of the dead….
I believe that&#8217;s how it became a symbol of World War I. It was originally to mark November 11, the eleventh day of the eleventh month at 11:00 am, when the guns stopped firing and the truce came on. In Britain and in Europe, we don&#8217;t really realize what that war was. It was kind of like our civil war, there was not a town in Europe that wasn&#8217;t affected by it, an entire generation of men was wiped out. I contend that it was the beginning of a long world war that included World War II, that ended Europe, that ended the great civilization of Europe. 
Europe has essentially been an American client-state ever since then, and no longer produces the kind of art, science, and thought that it did when it was the leader of the world that was one of the greatest — I think it was probably the greatest culture that ever existed on Earth, and World War I brought that to an end. So here in the 50s, we changed it to Veterans Day to celebrate all veterans, which is a wonderful thing. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CAJVBNllG4Q?start=491" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
I was looking it up, and I found this incredible tape, which is the tape of the sound on the front, on the American front in World War I, as the guns stopped at 11:11 on 11/11. You have to imagine that these guys have been out there for years. They&#8217;ve been stuck in these trenches; they&#8217;re covered in rats; they&#8217;re covered in sores; their feet are always wet; they&#8217;re always in danger of their head being blown off. If they pop their head over the side and every now and again they&#8217;re sent into these useless, useless charges, and these guns have been going forever and ever and ever. 
This is where the idea of shell-shock came from, people coming back from this horror of these horrible conditions, basically broken and insane. One of the things they frequently talked about was the relentless shelling — shelling, year after year, day after day, minute after minute, year after year. Never stopped, these dangerous shells, and sometimes those shells would hit and kill the guy next to you if it didn&#8217;t eradicate you.
Here&#8217;s the moment. The actual moment on 11/11, one hundred years ago, exactly a hundred years ago when the firing stopped.
[Recording Plays]&#8230;
<blockquote>TRUMP: In 1919, the people of this city filled block after block to welcome home General Pershing and his 25,000 American soldiers after victory in World War I. Just a few years before many of those soldiers had boarded ships not far from here at Hoboken Port, more than four million Americans fought in the Great War and more than one hundred sixteen thousand made the ultimate sacrifice. At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the armistice was declared: The war had come to an end, and the allies achieved a great, great victory. Every year since, on November 11, we have shared our nation&#8217;s deepest praise and gratitude to every citizen who has worn the uniform of the American Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines.</blockquote>
That, of course, is your president making his Veterans Day speech and remembering that 100 years ago. You know, I sometimes think that this holiday should be renamed to something like Thanksgiving, unless somebody else is using that, because it really is a moment of remembering that everything we do is is dependent upon the people who keep us safe. The military certainly in the world, the police at home, ICE agents who do defend us at the border, the border guards who defend us at the border, all these things that we do are dependent upon the peace that they keep. 
So when you sing your child a lullaby, when you go to the opera, when you read a book, when you you&#8217;re making love to your or your spouse, when you&#8217;re doing all the things going to work, those things happen because these guys are in a way behind the scenes where you don&#8217;t see them and you don&#8217;t have to experience them.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

President Trump To Attend 100th Annual Veteran Parade Of NYC

KLAVAN: The Day The Gunfire Stopped

On Monday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about an allegation in Nikki Haley’s new book that former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly tried to induce her to undermine the president. Video and partial transcript below: 
All of these mainstream outlets just do not command our respect, and it makes you think a little differently about the president, who is usually the object of their ire.
Even in the administration, we had been told that all the really smart people — all the fancy people who wear jackets and ties and live in the Beltway — they said, look, Trump might be terrible, I&#8217;m talking about even right-wingers, Trump might be terrible, but at least we have responsible people in the administration. Good, serious, responsible people defending the rule of law, defending our institutions and our norms. People like, I don&#8217;t know, Rex Tillerson, former secretary of state. People like John Kelly, former White House chief of staff. They&#8217;re the good guys. They&#8217;re the one defending our norms and our Constitution; Trump is the one destroying it.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g8jqtUd7_84" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Except now in a new book, in a new interview, Nikki Haley is saying that it was actually guys like Tillerson and Kelly who were undermining our norms, undermining our institutions, undermining our Constitution. Nikki Haley writes in her new book, quote, “Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they were not being insubordinate. They were trying to save the country.”
Here&#8217;s Nikki Haley:
<blockquote>REPORTER: Secretary of State Tillerson went on to tell you the reason he resisted the president&#8217;s decisions was because if he didn&#8217;t, people would die. You memorialize that conversation, it definitely happened?
HALEY: It absolutely happened, and instead of saying that to me, they should have been saying that to the president. Not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan, it should have been, go tell the president what your differences are and quit if you don&#8217;t like what he&#8217;s doing. But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing, and it goes against the constitution and it goes against what the American people want. It was was offensive. </blockquote>
That&#8217;s absolutely right, and this is where I begin when I&#8217;m evaluating something that the president has done. I do not begin from the position that Trump is always right, [and] I love everything he&#8217;s doing. Whether that&#8217;s on policy, whether that&#8217;s on executive action, whether that&#8217;s on his behavior, that&#8217;s actually not where I begin. 
I do have some policy problems with the president. For instance, I didn&#8217;t like the First Step Act — I thought that was a mistake. I felt that health care could&#8217;ve been handled a little differently, sure. So there are some policy differences. However, where I begin is from a position of assuming the best of the president, and maybe the corruption of the mainstream media. Why do I assume that? Because that&#8217;s exactly the opposite of the script that I&#8217;m being told by the mainstream media, and I&#8217;ve just been fooled one too many times.
The media have told us that Trump colluded with Russia to overturn the 2016 election, that he should be impeached for his tax problems, that he&#8217;s a racist and a bigot, and a Nazi, and a terrible person. They&#8217;ve been lying the whole time, and so I just approach these questions, not even with treating these guys differently. I won&#8217;t even say that I begin assuming Trump is really great, and the media are really terrible. 
I just begin with a little skepticism about those claims. And I give a little bit of grace to the president because it&#8217;s the opposite of what we&#8217;re getting, and usually that appears to be the right way to go. You can even see this with the ex-Trump administration officials who have done well. The ones who have done well, [like Nikki Haley], the ones who position themselves well are the ones who don&#8217;t throw him under the bus. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

President Trump Departs White House For Minneapolis

KNOWLES: How To Flip The Script On The Mainstream Media

On Monday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about a New York Times column claiming that “multibillion-dollar fortunes” are “anti-democratic.” Video and partial transcript below: 
The Bernie Sanders attack on billionaires, and the Elizabeth Warren attack on billionaires, is cynical and just disgusting. &#8230;
Elizabeth Warren is worth $12 million, and there she is [paraphrasing]: “These rich people, these rich people, they must be stopped.” And you got Bernie Sanders, who&#8217;s basically a giant welfare queen living off the government for the last 30 years — what is he now, he&#8217;s 78-years-old — living off the government for 50 years of his life. He&#8217;s like [paraphrasing]: “Oh, well, you know, we can&#8217;t let any of these people who actually earned their wealth run anything. They shouldn&#8217;t run for office. Only I should! I&#8217;ve been useless my entire life, so useless I was kicked off a commune.” 
So you got Bernie ripping into billionaires, and then [you’ve] got Michael Tomasky over at <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/billionaires-warren-wealth-tax.html">The New York Times</a> saying, “Bill Gates, I implore you to connect some dots.”
“The billionaire class has begun unloading on Elizabeth Warren.” 
You see, it&#8217;s a class now. Now, just to recognize a fact: Bill Gates is basically a lifelong Democrat. Warren Buffett is a lifelong Democrat. A lot of these, quote unquote “billionaire class members” are lifelong Democrats, people who&#8217;ve given tons of money to left-leaning causes. But they’re a class now, you see. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z6oi-dHemkc?start=1584" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This is pure Marxist speak where you are judged by the basis of your income — on the basis of your wealth — not by what you think, or what you do, or how you vote, or any of that sort of stuff. George Soros is a billionaire, [and he] gives a lot of money to exactly the kinds of people that Jamie Dimon doesn&#8217;t like, so treating everybody as a class based on their income is really stupid, in any case. This dumb columnist for The New York Times says: “A few days ago, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase — at just $1.6 billion in net worth, a comparative piker — said Senator Warren &#8216;vilifies successful people.&#8217;” 
[This] is true. 
“Then Bill Gates ($107 billion), in an onstage interview with The Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin, mused about what his tax bill might be in a Warren presidency and left the door open to voting for Trump should Democrats nominate Ms. Warren.”
Which makes sense, because her wealth tax proposal is baloney. 
“And then Michael Bloomberg ($52 billion), who had previously criticized Ms. Warren as anti-corporate, signaled his intention to jump into the race, obviously out of concern at her rise.”
“I&#8217;m not expert enough to judge the wisdom of Senator Warren&#8217;s proposed wealth tax.” 
Well then, what are you writing about? Like this entire thing is about her wealth tax. 
“I know, there are questions about its constitutionality and that several European nations tried a similar approach and found it unworkable (though four countries still have it). I don&#8217;t get why the candidates aren&#8217;t simply proposing to increase marginal income tax rates on dollars earned above some very high figure. That seems a lot more straightforward to me.”
The reason — the stunning ignorance of The New York Times columnist. The reason, not to justify Elizabeth Warren, [but] the reason she&#8217;s proposing a wealth tax is there isn&#8217;t enough money at the upper end of the income bracket, in terms of income earned every year, to pay for her proposals. The wealth tax is a confiscatory, nasty tax designed to pay for her garbage proposals that amount to $52 trillion dollars in spending over the next 10 years. That&#8217;s why she&#8217;s going for the wealth tax. You can increase the marginal tax rate, [but] it ain’t going to pay for this stuff. It isn&#8217;t. But this guy says:
“So this column is not a brief for Ms. Warren&#8217;s wealth tax and for her candidacy — I don&#8217;t have a preferred candidate. Instead, I want to make a simple plea to the country&#8217;s billionaires: Multibillion-dollar fortunes are often called excessive and decadent. But here&#8217;s something they’re rarely called but ought to be: Anti-democratic. These fortunes will destroy our democracy.”
Let me get this straight. You earn a billion dollars because you have a bunch of consensual economic transactions of people, and that&#8217;s anti-democratic? What is democratic is for the government to come and seize the results of those voluntary transactions? Jeff Bezos has not seized wealth from anyone, but you want the government to do that — who&#8217;s more anti-democratic? Bill Gates has not seized wealth from anyone. In fact, he&#8217;s provided jobs to hundreds of thousands of people and indirectly, probably millions of people. You want to seize the wealth he has earned on the basis of those voluntary economic transactions — who&#8217;s more anti-democratic?
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

SHAPIRO: The Left Plans To Eat The Rich

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Socialism

Socialism

`On Friday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about Elizabeth Warren’s new endorsement, which comes from an intersectional group with an unpronounceable name. Video and partial transcript below: 
[Elizabeth Warren] was endorsed yesterday by “Black Womxn For.” Black womex? Wimix? I don&#8217;t even know how — wimixin, which is a group that — it’s “womxn” because they don&#8217;t want to say “men,” because “men” is a very bad word. Really, they spelled women “w-o-m-x-n,” which makes it utterly unpronounceable.
It&#8217;s like [inaudible] right there, the crazed monster, the science-fiction monster from from fiction literature. Wimixin. Thank you, black wimixin — that&#8217;s how you pronounce it. Elizabeth Warren got their endorsement [and tweeted]:
“Black, trans and cis women, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly. I&#8217;m committed to fighting alongside you for the big structural change our country needs.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Thank you, <a href="https://twitter.com/BlackWomxnFor?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BlackWomxnFor</a>! Black trans and cis women, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy and I don’t take this endorsement lightly. I&#8217;m committed to fighting alongside you for the big, structural change our country needs. <a href="https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb">https://t.co/KqWsVoRYMb</a>
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1192526820559785986?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
Black, trans and cis women, gender nonconforming and nonbinary people are the backbone of our democracy? If by that, she just means like all Americans are the backbone of our democracy — sure, why not? Like you&#8217;re an American, welcome, you’re the backbone of our democracy. If she specifically means that the key to our democracy are gender nonconforming, nonbinary people, and black trans and cis women, I&#8217;m going to need her to show her work on that one. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5rxaf29VoHM?start=749" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Like really, if they&#8217;re more significant than — if she wants to say they’re just as significant as everybody else, yes, agree. If you&#8217;re saying that they are more— like they&#8217;re the backbone of our democracy? I&#8217;m going to need her to show me some math because I&#8217;m not not seeing how that works. But this is Elizabeth Warren’s shtick. 
Now, the problem for Elizabeth Warren, again, is that she is completely out of touch with reality. She happens to be completely inauthentic, so again, [former New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg jumping into the race &#8230; helps her against [former Vice President Joe] Biden, but Elizabeth Warren is not doing herself any favors.
Demonstrating once again her inauthenticity, she said yesterday at an event that if she had to choose between going out on the town and “Netflix and Chill,” she favors “Netflix and Chill.” I don&#8217;t think she knows what that means. Here’s Elizabeth Warren saying the thing: 
<blockquote>MODERATOR: Okay, Netflix and Chill, or Broadway and dinner? 
WARREN: Oh, Netflix and Chill!</blockquote>
Pretty sure she doesn&#8217;t know what that means. It doesn&#8217;t mean you only watch Netflix. Over the last several years, that term has morphed fairly significantly. But she&#8217;s with the people! Okay, Boomer. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-anti-gun-extremist-billionaire-michael-bloomberg-preps-to-enter-2020-race-report-says">Anti-Gun Extremist Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, Preps To Enter 2020 Race, Report Says</a>

Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Holds A Town Hall In South Carolina

SHAPIRO: Apparently, The ‘Backbone’ Of American ‘Democracy’ Just Endorsed Elizabeth Warren.

Democratic Party

On Friday, Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, who is an attorney by training, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SjD3d6gvnM">joined</a> &#8220;Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler&#8221; on One America News Network to discuss reporter John Solomon&#8217;s recent <a href="https://johnsolomonreports.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-pressed-obama-administration-to-end-corruption-allegations-memos-show/">bombshell revelation</a> that now-infamous Ukrainian energy firm Burisma attempted to leverage employee Hunter Biden&#8217;s stature as the son of former Vice President Joe Biden to obtain access to the U.S. State Department toward the end of the Obama presidency.
As <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/07/emails-reveal-burisma-consulting-firm-leveraged-hunter-biden-to-get-state-dept-meetings/">reported</a> last week by Erielle Davidson of The Federalist, Solomon obtained emails via the <a href="https://www.foia.gov">Freedom of Information Act</a> (FOIA) that &#8220;reveal[ed] that Burisma&#8217;s consulting firm had &#8230; mentioned Hunter Biden when seeking a meeting with the State Department to discuss corruption allegations against the company.&#8221; Solomon&#8217;s FOIA-uncovered &#8220;<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/433389210/Bluestar-Novelli-Contacts" data-reader-unique-id="11">email from February 2016</a> specifically cited Hunter Biden&#8217;s involvement with Burisma when discussing the possibility of setting up a meeting with Burisma’s consulting firm,&#8221; Davidson continued. Here is the full email in which Burisma&#8217;s consulting firm was sure to highlight the then-vice president&#8217;s son as a prominent employee (emphasis added):
<blockquote>Per our conversation, Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies requested a meeting to discuss with [Under Secretary] Novelli [U.S. Government] remarks alleging Burisma (Ukrainian energy company) of corruption. She noted that two high profile U.S. citizens are affiliated with the company (including Hunter Biden as a board member). Tramontano would like to talk with U/S Novelli about getting a better understanding of how the U.S. came to the determination that the company is corrupt. According to Tramontano, there is no evidence of corruption, has been no hearing or process, and evidence to the contrary has not been considered.  Would appreciate any background you may be able to provide on this issue and suggested TPs for U/S Novelli’s meeting.</blockquote>
Furthermore, the February 2016 email was <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-lobbied-state-department-to-end-corruption-allegations-emails-show_3137480.html">sent merely one month</a> before then-Vice President Biden <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/">pressured Ukraine</a> to fire a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.
Wheeler and Hammer discussed the stakes of the FOIA bombshell. Wheeler began the discussion by asking Hammer whether the FOIA-released email, which clearly demonstrates Burisma attempting to secure high-level U.S. government access via deploying Hunter Biden&#8217;s name, reveals exactly what the Bidens have denied transpired. Hammer concurred with Wheeler&#8217;s intuition and described the powerful FOIA statutory tool as a &#8220;helluva drug.&#8221;
<blockquote>FOIA is a hell of a drug. FOIA litigation in the federal courts is oftentimes crazy, just because of what it ends up divulging, and this is no different than that. The timeline here is pretty crazy. It looks like one month before Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire this prosecutor who was looking into Burisma — literally one month before that, Burisma was in communication with the U.S. State Department trying to get a meeting. And they were expressly name-dropping Hunter Biden as a reason to get that meeting.
I mean, Liz, the Left wants to talk about foreign interference, foreign governments, foreign corporations, everyone kind of defiling our sovereignty and meddling in our affairs. &#8230; Look at what is going on here: A foreign corporation &#8230; they&#8217;re allowed to lobby, that&#8217;s their right, but to do so in this manner, to expressly name-drop in communication with the State Department that the reason they want this meeting is because the vice president at the time&#8217;s son is on the board &#8230; that is wild. That is a wild, wild revelation.</blockquote>
WATCH:
<iframe title="Hunter Biden FOIA Bombshell" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6SjD3d6gvnM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hammer OANN 11.08.19

WATCH: Hammer On ‘Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler’: The Hunter Biden FOIA Bombshell

Hunter Biden

State Department

Ukraine

On Thursday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about the media’s attempt to romanticize the next phase of impeachment proceedings in order to manipulate the public’s emotions. Video and partial transcript below: 
They’ve scheduled open impeachment hearings for next week — theoretically open impeachment hearings, and let&#8217;s just listen to the way CBS News, Norah O&#8217;Donnell, who is really bad. She is, she&#8217;s not just bad, she&#8217;s stiff and performative on the news. She&#8217;s so prejudiced, so biased that anyone with any sense of fairness has got to listen to her and think, &#8220;Wait a minute, this isn&#8217;t the news. These are Democrat talking points.&#8221; But you got to listen to this, the way she promotes the upcoming impeachment hearings.  
<blockquote>O’DONNELL: Tonight: Lights, camera, testimony. The stage is set for the first televised hearings of the impeachment inquiry. We now know when they will happen and who may be the Democrats&#8217; star witness. 
Good evening and thank you for joining us. It&#8217;s official: Historic, televised impeachment hearings begin a week from today, and it promises to be must-see TV. The Democrats plan to start with their star witness, a West Point grad with 50 years of public service. Acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor will testify Wednesday alongside Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent. Then on Friday, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch will testify. House Democrats say that&#8217;s just the beginning. 
Today, more Democrats — I should say, more of the Democrats released more transcripts from those closed door depositions, and Nancy Cordes says they offer a preview of what&#8217;s expected to be bombshell testimony.</blockquote>
Bombshell? It’s a bombshell! Lights, camera, action! I mean, it’s like over at NewsBusters, they said it&#8217;s like a prize fight, but it&#8217;s just like promotion for entertainment, promotion for a movie. It&#8217;s a blockbuster &#8230;
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3t2OFnH_VEY?start=411" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Anyway, so they&#8217;re promoting this thing like it&#8217;s a movie, and here&#8217;s a piece that The Washington Post ran on Adam Schiff, the congressman in my district. Now this guy to me is like a greasy McCarthyite dishonest guy. He&#8217;s been caught lying repeatedly. Right, he lied about the whistleblower, he lied about having evidence of Russian collusion with Trump, he has just lied from the beginning, plus he looks like a turtle taken out of his shell. I&#8217;m sorry, but he does, he looks like a turtle. [The] guy is a turtle taken out of its shell and he lies all the time, and the Left, both The New York Times, a former newspaper, and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/adam-schiff-once-wanted-to-be-a-screenwriter-can-he-give-the-trump-presidency-a-hollywood-ending/2019/10/31/07cb9594-f748-11e9-ad8b-85e2aa00b5ce_story.html">The Washington Post</a>, where democracy dies in crap, are trying to glorify this guy to make him look like a romantic figure. It is utterly amazing. I mean, people do have eyes. They do have ears, they do see things, but they&#8217;re living in their own world. So here&#8217;s the [headline]:
&#8220;Adam Schiff once wanted to be a screenwriter. Can he give the Trump presidency a Hollywood ending?&#8221; 
And we know what The Washington Post — this is in the style section, by the way. We know what The Washington Post thinks a Hollywood ending to the Trump presidency would be: It’s Trump led out of the White House in handcuffs. Ain&#8217;t going to happen, but let me read you some of this, because it actually does tell you exactly what&#8217;s happening when you think about it. 
<blockquote>When Adam Schiff was a young assistant U.S. attorney living in Los Angeles, he did what everyone does when they moved to Hollywood. He wrote a screenplay. He spent hours at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Sciences, reading the scripts for &#8220;Silence of the Lambs&#8221; and &#8220;Witness&#8221; in the library (it was the ‘90s). He leaned on his courtroom experience, thinking back on snippets of dialog during trials as he typed out a crime thriller. The prosecutor was the hero, naturally. He called it &#8220;Minotaur,&#8221; and, if you ask Schiff, it was pretty good.
&#8220;I got an offer of an option from Nick Wechsler,&#8221; Schiff said, leaning back in a leather chair inside his Capitol Hill office late last month. &#8220;He produced &#8216;The Player,’ remember that movie with Tim Robbins?&#8221;
Schiff turned down the offer, he said. He doesn&#8217;t remember it being a huge sum of money, and anyway, he was getting into a different kind of storytelling business: Politics.</blockquote>
This is The Washington Post glorifying this guy and yet also playing his hand.
<blockquote>In some ways, he&#8217;s become the chief storyteller of this drama-filled political moment. Schiff is the head of the House Intelligence Committee and leader of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry of President Trump. He&#8217;s in charge of calling witnesses, taking depositions, and subpoenaing documents. More than that, it&#8217;s his job to stitch it all together into a believable, easy-to-follow narrative. Imagine the pitch meeting: It&#8217;s like &#8220;The Manchurian Candidate,&#8221; except the president has heel spurs. It&#8217;s &#8220;The Godfather&#8221; meets &#8220;Borat.&#8221;</blockquote>
Alright, they’re telling you — you know, I talk about this on college campuses a lot because really, my expertise, is storytelling. That is what I&#8217;ve done all my life, that&#8217;s what I know about. I&#8217;ve studied it a lot, I’ve studied it deeply. I would say, I know about narrative and how it works, and I know about how it affects people and about how storyteller stories manipulate your emotions. 
Again, I think I mentioned this yesterday, you go to a movie and you cry over the death of someone who never lived, right? And that&#8217;s an important thing — it tells you that your emotions can be manipulated at a very high level, and it&#8217;s a good thing. We like it when it&#8217;s done right. But it can also be used against you, because they can manipulate emotions that are geared to one thing and tell you that they&#8217;re about another. 
The best example I can think about is a movie like &#8220;Avatar,&#8221; which is also the movie &#8220;Dances with Wolves,&#8221; which is also the movie &#8220;Pocahontas.&#8221; They&#8217;re all the same movie: A man from a civilized, in these cases white, society enters the world of a less civilized, non-white society and discovers that they&#8217;re the innocents and they&#8217;re these wonderful — what do they call them in the old days, the noble savage? — and his society is deeply corrupt. That&#8217;s the story in each one of those instances, right? His civilized society is bad, and the innocent brown people with their primitive society is good. 
Listen, all stories that move you are telling the truth, but it&#8217;s up to you to find out what that truth is. The truth is, we all know that there&#8217;s something distorting about technology, there&#8217;s something distorting about civilization. Freud called it &#8220;Civilization and Its Discontents,&#8221; and we all have this Rousseauvian feeling that there&#8217;s something we left behind, just like we have a feeling that there&#8217;s something we left behind in childhood. Maybe those feelings are connected? 
Okay, so they&#8217;re manipulating that to tell you that the white cavalry men in the West were bad and the Native Americans were good. They’re manipulating a true feeling to tell you something that is historically a lot more complicated than that, right? Historically, it&#8217;s a lot more complicated, and &#8220;Avatar&#8221; is even worse because they&#8217;re manipulating you to think that the American military is bad. Basically, they were telling you that the Iraqis and the Afghanis were innocent people and we were going in there to steal their oil. &#8230;
Anyway, this is what they&#8217;re doing: Manipulating us. They&#8217;re playing this up, [saying] it&#8217;s a dramatic moment in politics. It&#8217;s not dramatic, it&#8217;s really not. We know what the story is, we know the real story. We know that this is something that&#8217;s been going on for a long time — that they&#8217;re trying to get this president impeached.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Nancy Pelosi And Adam Schiff

KLAVAN: Lights, Camera, Impeachment!

Washington Post

On Thursday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) endorsing Elizabeth Warren for president. Video and partial transcript below: 
Big endorsement for Elizabeth Warren. You saw a few weeks ago, AOC and Ilhan Omar, and who&#8217;s the other one? Whatever, the other member of the &#8220;Squad&#8221; — Rashida Tlaib &#8230; they were coming out for Bernie Sanders, but one member of the &#8220;Squad&#8221; was not coming out for Bernie. That was Ayanna Pressley, the Ringo of the squad, and she is coming out now for Elizabeth Warren. Here she is: 
<blockquote>PRESSLEY: The American people deserve to be represented by elected officials who see them, who listen to them, and who fight for them. I have seen Elizabeth in small church basements and in packed gymnasiums, and she is consistent: She never loses sight of the people. You&#8217;ve all heard about the senator&#8217;s plans, but here&#8217;s the thing, the plans are about power. Who has it, who refuses to let it go, and who deserves more of it. 
For Elizabeth and for me, power belongs in the hands of people. That&#8217;s why she&#8217;s fighting for fundamental change that restores power to those who&#8217;ve been left behind and centers those who&#8217;ve never had access to it in the first place. This election is a fight for the very soul of our nation. Elizabeth knows how to fight, and she knows how to win. 
I&#8217;m proud to call her my senator; I can&#8217;t wait to call her our president. I&#8217;m Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley and I represent the Massachusetts 7th Congressional District, and I&#8217;m proud to endorse Elizabeth Warren for president.</blockquote>
Okay, so this is a good pickup for Elizabeth Warren; however, it&#8217;s not the same as AOC and Ilhan Omar endorsing Bernie Sanders. Why not? Because Ayanna Pressley sort of had to endorse Elizabeth Warren, because Ayanna Pressley is a congressman from Massachusetts and Elizabeth Warren is a senator from Massachusetts. So it’s just, these are people who&#8217;ve worked together, they share a constituency, it just looks much better for her to back the person from her own state. Also, Elizabeth Warren has momentum now, so she&#8217;s finally willing to get on board. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zx6wAbhGQqw?start=1323" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
I suspect if Ayanna Pressley were not from Massachusetts, she might withhold an endorsement — maybe she would have gone to Bernie Sanders. It&#8217;s a much bigger deal when you get the endorsement on the basis of ideology, and not really just on geography or opportunism, and that&#8217;s what happened when AOC backed Bernie and when Ilhan Omar backed Bernie Sanders. 
Still a good win for Elizabeth Warren, and she&#8217;s trotting this out now because the race is starting to heat up, and you&#8217;re starting to see people snipe at one another, and because, as we said a couple of days ago on the show, Elizabeth Warren has made her decision. She was debating — is she going to try to fight off Joe Biden, or is she going to try to fight off Bernie Sanders? Is she going to steal Biden&#8217;s moderate voters or is she gonna steal Bernie&#8217;s socialist voters? She&#8217;s made her choice. 
She&#8217;s running as a leftist, and she&#8217;s going to let Pete Buttigieg try to fight it out to win the moderate lane. She&#8217;s going to the Left, she&#8217;s now advocating a $52 trillion health care program. She is trotting out endorsements from socialists, she&#8217;s going all the way left. You know, it&#8217;s a bold strategy, Cotton, we&#8217;ll see how it turns out for her. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

Elizabeth Warren Campaigns With Rep. Ayanna Pressley In North Carolina

KNOWLES: The Ringo Of ‘The Squad’ Endorses Warren. This Isn’t Surprising.

Ayanna Pressley

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan tells the story of how protesters at Boston College failed to shut down his speech. Video and partial transcript below: 
Boston College, first of all gave these kids — these conservative kids are already under the gun, they&#8217;re already having a problem, and they gave them the runaround. They were always nice, kind of like Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo&#8217;s Nest, always talking them in soft voice and meanwhile, they delayed, and they delayed, and they delayed. They wouldn&#8217;t sign the contract. They wouldn&#8217;t make it happen.
So the kids didn&#8217;t have enough time to actually advertise and promote my coming there. So they made it as difficult as they could. They were so petty, they wouldn&#8217;t even give us a microphone. They wouldn&#8217;t let them invite — like everybody else does this, they&#8217;re not supposed to invite people from off-campus — but most people do invite people from off-campus, and they made it explicit that they couldn&#8217;t invite people from off-campus. They wouldn&#8217;t let them record, they wouldn&#8217;t let them stream live, all of which other people do on the Boston College campus. But they specifically wouldn&#8217;t let them, the conservatives, the Republicans, do it. 
Then when the contract came, there was a clause in the contract saying I couldn&#8217;t criticize Boston College, which is just gutless. If you aren&#8217;t going to stand up for free speech, if you&#8217;re against free speech, if you&#8217;re against people saying what they have to say and having new ideas and ideas that you don&#8217;t like — if that&#8217;s how small-minded you are, own up to it. Be a man. Stand up and say, “Yeah, we don&#8217;t like free speech. We only want you to hear our ideas because if you hear other ideas, you might disagree with us and then we&#8217;ll be exposed as the frauds we are.”
So stand up, at least say what you are. So before I get there, the newspaper, I think it&#8217;s called “The Heights,” runs this story: “Boston College Republicans to Host Speaker With History of Islamophobic Comments.” It was a genuinely, cleverly crafted story — crafted to be incendiary. It made it sound like everywhere I went, everyone was horrified by my Islamophobic ideas. All of the quotes, I believe — no, that&#8217;s not true — most of the quotes were from satire.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I5lc212HNtA?start=405" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The things that I really satire when I talk about Islam is the Left giving Islam a privileged position of not being able to be criticized, right. Because you’ve heard me, you know I love the Catholic faith, I’m not a Catholic person, but you know I have a great respect and knowledge about the Catholic faith. But I&#8217;ve also wondered aloud whether maybe some of their sexual attitudes contributed to the scandal in the Catholic Church. I have also exactly done the same thing, wondering aloud, talking about the ideas that I worry in Islam may have contributed to the fact that Islam has been a part of every major conflict since 1978 except the Mexican drug war, which we&#8217;ll be talking about later on. So I&#8217;ve asked all these questions, I&#8217;ve made jokes about Islam because I make jokes about all these things, and anything that is irrational or evil to me seems to me absurd and funny. 
So they they tag me as “Islamophobic,” which is also just, it’s a cowardly word. It is essentially delegitimizing any attempt to discuss the fact that Islam is at war with everybody on Earth — with Buddhists, with Jews, with other Muslims — and it has nothing to do with whether there are nice Muslims or whether Islam can reform. Of course, there are. Muslim people are no worse than any other people, it&#8217;s just you have to question these ideas. And if you can&#8217;t question ideas, why build a college in the first place? If you&#8217;re not going to talk about good ideas versus bad ideas. 
So I go to give my speech, and this is why I say it was almost a parable, it was almost like it was a written thing. My speech was about how the Left uses narrative — because I&#8217;m a writer. I&#8217;ve made my living as a fiction writer for 30 years, and there aren&#8217;t very many people who can say that. I mean, there are more Major League Baseball players than people who have made their living writing fiction, so I feel they have a certain expertise on how stories work and how people use stories. And my whole speech was about how narrative is used to let your emotions carry you away, so you stop paying attention to facts and that makes you angry at the people across the aisle from you. It means that you&#8217;re so emotional, you can&#8217;t debate anything and then you get stupid because you can&#8217;t listen to other people. And while I&#8217;m making the speech, a virtual riot starts outside. Over a hundred people were outside. 
Now I was, and I want to say thank you to the god-king, Jeremy Boreing, he sprung for two security guys who were &#8230; absolutely terrific. But the Boston College police showed up, too — about three of them were there when I arrived — and they were excellent, as well. I mean, they were just terrific and really on-point, and when this thing started, they were pounding on the walls, they were screaming. I could see these twisted, angry faces of these essentially children yelling, and they were chanting all these hateful things, that I was a hateful person and all this stuff, banging on the walls. I think at one point they climbed upstairs. 
They were pounding on the ceiling. The police wanted to get rid of them; Boston College would not allow them to be removed. This is not free speech, by the way. It is not free speech to assault, essentially assault people — I&#8217;m not saying they physically assaulted anyone, saying that they made it impossible for us to speak, to break in and disrupt things like that, that is not free speech. That is an action and can be stopped and should be stopped at Boston College &#8230;
So as I&#8217;m giving this speech and I&#8217;m using the rioters as an example of what I&#8217;m saying. I&#8217;m saying, “Look, this is what I&#8217;m talking about. This is how they become these people. This is what they are turned into by the Left’s tactics.” As I&#8217;m making this speech, I can see the faces of the police and of my security guys getting kind of serious and a little wider than they were before, and at one point, they had told me how they were going to get me out. And finally, I answered all the questions. I wasn&#8217;t gonna leave until I was done, I wasn&#8217;t going to be chased out, I answered all the questions, and then the security guy said, look, we got to go. 
At this point, I didn&#8217;t know this, but when I walked outside, there were a lot of police and they surrounded me. I felt like Reagan after he was shot. They ran me to the car. Look, I didn&#8217;t come anywhere near the rioters, but there&#8217;s no question if I had, they were so worked up that something bad could have happened. So the police were acting completely responsibly, doing completely the right thing. I got a police escort off the campus, and this is shameful. This is a shameful thing to do to children — to teach them that everything they disagree with is hate. 
There&#8217;s no such thing as Islamophobia. There&#8217;s a lot of violence from the Islamic community. Some of it has been directed catastrophically at America. Some of it has been directed catastrophically at the West. There is nothing wrong with discussing the ideas that may lead to that and discussing why this is such a problem in the Islamic world. I hold no hostility against any Islamic person. But look, these are people who scream and yell at you if you say a man is not a woman. If you say any facts about reality, they lose their stuff because they&#8217;ve been taught to do this. Children are not born like this — they&#8217;re taught to do this in the same way I was taught to have civic civil conversations. 
You know, I&#8217;m watching some of this stuff. I mean, they are being made stupid. They are. And these are, in a sense, privileged kids — I don&#8217;t know each individual kid&#8217;s background, but I know Boston College is not a cheap college, and only like a third — the top third of Americans go to college in the first place. So they&#8217;re already the elite. They&#8217;re not oppressed, they&#8217;ve never been oppressed and not having any problems, any real problems, unless they have some personal problem that has nothing to do with politics. 
They have been turned into zombie instruments of the Left by people who don&#8217;t want them to hear other opinions, because once they hear other opinions, they&#8217;re going to realize that their Boston College professors have feet of clay and they&#8217;re teaching them things that really aren&#8217;t true. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Andrew Klavan

KLAVAN: Privileged Leftists Tried To Shut Down My Speech At Boston College. They Failed.

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about Emma Watson’s recent announcement that she has chosen to be in a relationship with herself. Video and partial transcript below: 
Emma Watson is partnered to herself — in other words, she&#8217;s single. This is delusional language, and I understand why people are using this language, but you really shouldn&#8217;t because it&#8217;s going to lead to misery. 
First of all, I&#8217;m not saying marriage is for everyone. Some of the happiest people on earth are unmarried. There was a survey that that went around of the “happiest jobs” thing, I think this was in 2007 out of the University of Chicago, the happiest people in the world, the most job-satisfied and fulfilled people are actually celibate Catholic priests. So marriage is not for everybody. Plenty of religious people who are unmarried &#8230; are very happy. And for people who just happen to be single, they happen to be unmarried, there are ways to promote long-term happiness. 
There was another study out of Harvard. It&#8217;s one of the longest studies of adult life ever conducted, it showed that relationships with your family, relationships with friends, relationships with the local community, can seriously promote long-term happiness, even if you&#8217;re unmarried, or you&#8217;ve never been married, or you’re divorced, or you&#8217;re a widow.
The difference between all of those things and being self-partnered is the object of your relationships. Because priests are not self-partnered; priests are in a relationship with God. People who have long-term happiness and are unmarried are not self-partnered. They have strong bonds to their communities, their family, to friends to go to church, to going to the local PTA, going to the local Lions Club, whatever.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XZgNywn-8e8?start=253" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Marrying yourself, self-partnership, all different. I mean, we&#8217;ve seen self-marriage crop up in recent years, not just Dennis Rodman. I mean, Dennis Rodman probably started this trend in the 1990s when he declared himself bisexual, put on a wedding dress, and said he was going to marry himself. When Dennis Rodman did that, we all laughed about it. We all joked, right, I mean this was kind of a ridiculous stunt. Now, years later, it&#8217;s actually happening. 
Two years ago, in 2017, a woman named Adriana Lima married herself. Other women have done this; their stories about this crop up all the time. They call it sologamy. Thirteen years ago, so after Rodman but before Adriana Lima, a woman named [Alexandra] Gill wed herself. And she said, quote, &#8220;You’re the one constant.&#8221;
&#8220;Your parents will die, your children will grow up and your friends will move, but you’re always there.&#8221; 
&#8220;I&#8217;m not looking for The One. I am The One.&#8221;
This is a recipe for misery. It&#8217;s not just in self-partnership &#8230; AI has permitted sex robot technology to get really, really advanced. So there are now sex robot brothels, there are now sex robots that don&#8217;t just move their arms and do whatever sort of things you want a sex robot to do, they actually have chest cavities that can breathe. They&#8217;re actually simulating human beings. They&#8217;re really close. I mean, Mashable did a report on this the other day. They said that the robots are just as good as people. But they&#8217;re not people, they&#8217;re just hunks of metal and plastic. 
But people are, I think, mistakenly doing all of these things. These women who are marrying themselves, or people who were buying sex robots, or people who were saying, I&#8217;m partnered with myself, I don&#8217;t need anybody. Forget the feminist line from the 70s, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” We can now say, “I need anybody else like a fish needs a bicycle. I don&#8217;t need anybody. I need me. All I need is myself. I am perfectly sufficient.”
Emma Watson had that feminist campaign a few years ago, called “HeForShe,” [but] it&#8217;s now becoming me for me. I understand the idea, there is a loneliness epidemic that&#8217;s going around this country and around the West generally. Loneliness is way, way up. There was a study came out of ViceLand, it surveyed young people, it found out that Millennials are more afraid of being lonely than they are of losing a job or losing a house. That survey showed that 42% of millennial women are more afraid of loneliness than they are of cancer. Stress, anxiety, depression — all up in recent years. Antidepressant pills, all up, people feeling very isolated, and so they turn to these these comforts, what they think are going to be comforts, sex robots, or the idea of self-sufficiency, or internet porn, which is just the same thing as sex robots, it&#8217;s just, you can&#8217;t touch it. It&#8217;s not as tangible, but it&#8217;s the same idea. 
Then ironically, when people turn to these things to alleviate their loneliness, they become more isolated. They become more withdrawn. Why? The reason is this culture of self-love — which you see all the time in leftist publications, you see it in Emma Watson talking to Vogue magazine — the cult of self-love has deluded people into confusing the virtue of endurance with the sin of pride. Everybody is going to be lonely — that happens to every single person multiple times throughout their lives for sometimes extended periods of time.
It is a virtue to be able to endure that loneliness, and what we try to do is mitigate the effects of that loneliness by engaging with our community, and by praying to God, and by involving ourselves in the whole world. Very different from the sin of pride, which tells us that we are sufficient unto ourselves, “I don&#8217;t need a partner. I don&#8217;t need it.”
But &#8230; human beings are not self-sufficient. It&#8217;s even, I think, sometimes conservatives want to lean a little too much in this direction of self-reliance. “I don&#8217;t need anybody else, I’ll just go it alone,” but you actually can&#8217;t. Human beings are meant to be in society together; there is no such thing as the state of nature where I&#8217;m a single individual atom just floating out in the universe. I&#8217;m born into a family, in a town, in a society with customs and traditions. Human beings are social animals, we are meant to be together. 
We&#8217;re the political animal. And what is the political animal? Politics is living together with other people and determining how you&#8217;re going to live and how you&#8217;re going to govern yourself. We feel that, and so we try to replace those social bonds with virtual social bonds — digital, virtual partnering with myself, or marrying myself, or looking at internet porn, or buying a sex robot. I understand the suffering that comes with it. I think the people who are saying these things are really trying hard to make the best of a bad situation. But denial is not going to help anything.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

Emma Watson

KNOWLES: Self-Partnership Is A Recipe For Misery

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the Democrats’ shifting attitude about the role of the whistleblower in the Ukraine story. Video and partial transcript below: 
Controversy has broken out as Republicans are trying to out the whistleblower. Now, the Democrats are claiming that the whistleblower is irrelevant — that at this point we&#8217;ve moved beyond the whistleblower’s complaint. There&#8217;s truth to that. The fact is that we now know what the whistleblower had to say, we have the transcript of the call. The whistleblower complaint really didn&#8217;t add anything. 
Now I&#8217;m being consistent on this. I said that the whistleblower complaint originally was less important than the transcript of the call, but that’s not what Democrats said. Democrats said, “We need the entire whistleblower complaint or its obstruction of justice and a cover-up. We need to interview the whistleblower, we need his thoughts!” Then, as soon as it became clear that the whistleblower was probably a partisan hack on behalf of Joe Biden, then it was, “Oh, we don&#8217;t need to hear from the whistleblower anymore.”
I’m of the opinion that the whistleblower is basically irrelevant once the claims of his complaint are made public. But is it fair for Republicans to point out Democratic hypocrisy right here? Yeah, that&#8217;s totally fair. As far as the idea that it is a violation of law to to release the name of the whistleblower — no, it isn&#8217;t. Whistleblower laws are designed to prevent the firing of a whistleblower. Keeping a whistleblower’s name confidential is usually designed to prevent their firing in the private sector, [or] as a private contractor with the United States government.
There are regulations in place that prevent the firing of whistleblower. The inspector general of a particular department is prevented from speaking the name aloud of the whistleblower, but there&#8217;s nothing that prevents Rand Paul from doing. This is the point that Rand Paul, who&#8217;s been pushing to out the whistleblower, made yesterday when he was in a tete-a-tete with the media.
<blockquote>REPORTER: You know it&#8217;s illegal to out a whistleblower?
PAUL: Actually, you see you’ve got that wrong too.
REPORTER: No, we don’t. 
PAUL: You should work on the facts. The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation. The other point, and you need to be very careful if you really are interested in the news, is that the whistleblower actually is a material witness, completely separate from being the whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden, at the same time [that] Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 a month. </blockquote>
So Rand Paul is actually making a pretty solid case as to why we ought to know who the whistleblower is, which is why I covered it on the show. I mean, that is newsworthy stuff. The fact is that if the situation were reversed, and this were a Republican whistleblower in a Democratic administration, this would have been plastered all over the front pages of every newspaper immediately, if it turned out that the person was a partisan hack on behalf of the Republicans. The media are so invested in Trump being pushed out of office, they&#8217;re so invested in hatred of Trump, it&#8217;s pretty astonishing. 
The best example today is that The Washington Post came out with a full, illustrated Mueller report. It&#8217;s embarrassing. I mean, it really is. Democracy dies in crappy cartoons. They drew all of these pictures, like Paul Manafort and James Comey, with thought bubbles. It&#8217;s absurd. They&#8217;re publishing a graphic nonfiction book centered on special counsel Robert Mueller&#8217;s obstruction of justice inquiry. I mean, I suppose they couldn’t do it with the Kenneth Starr report, then it just would&#8217;ve been pornography.
“The Mueller Report Illustrated is drawn directly from Volume II of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller&#8217;s report.” Of course, they&#8217;re not going to do it on Volume I because Volume I didn&#8217;t uncover anything. Volume I was about the Trump Russia collusion nonsense.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

SHAPIRO: The Democrats’ Shifting Standard For The Ukraine Whistleblower

Joe Biden

Grammy-winning country singer and songwriter Chris Stapleton released a must-watch music video on Wednesday for his 2017 song, “Second One To Know.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The official video for &#8220;Second One To Know&#8221; is out now.  <a href="https://t.co/XVYda7XM0o">https://t.co/XVYda7XM0o</a>
— Chris Stapleton (@ChrisStapleton) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisStapleton/status/1192140701242400775?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
The video, which was created in collaboration with Lego, features Stapleton as an animated Lego figurine playing a night-time concert for a crowd of enthusiastic fans. But trouble starts when a roving gang of biker ninjas decide to pull over and wreak havoc at the lakeside venue. 
Stapleton and his band fight off the onslaught of ninja warriors, all while continuing to perform “Second One To Know,” which is from the singer’s grammy-winning album “From A Room: Volume I.” 
Amidst the brawl, a concert speaker is tossed into lake next to the stage, and the sound waves ripple through the water and awaken an underwater dragon. 
Armed with a guitar and his signature rustic voice, Stapleton flies atop a bald eagle toward the dragon, which is now terrorizing his fans. But the dragon is no match for Stapleton, and the ensuing battle leaves the Lego lizard crumbling, the ninjas running, and the country star’s fans cheering. 
WATCH:
<iframe title="Chris Stapleton - Second One To Know" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6zRVuDKxhX8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;

54th Academy Of Country Music Awards &#8211; Red Carpet

WATCH: Chris Stapleton Releases Epic Lego Music Video

On Tuesday&#8217;s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the newest tape published by Project Veritas, in which ABC Anchor Amy Robach says in a hot mic that she had the Epstein story three years ago. Video and partial transcript below:
Our friend James O&#8217;Keefe, the undercover journalist over at Project Veritas, he has now gotten hold of tape of an ABC News anchor saying on a [hot] mic — her name is Amy Robach — and she was caught on camera slamming her own network for allegedly sitting on the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago. Here&#8217;s a little bit of what that sounded like, it&#8217;s pretty incredible, actually, pictures and everything: 
<blockquote>ROBACH: She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us, it was unbelievable what we had — Clinton, we have everything.
I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it&#8217;s all coming out and it&#8217;s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now. </blockquote>
She&#8217;s talking off air about the fact that now all these revelations were coming out about Jeffrey Epstein. She says, I had this years ago and ABC News quashed it and sat on it, and now she has issued a statement, Robach.
I mean, that just shows you how the media works. Bad look for the media, right? In the aftermath of NBC News basically quashing the Harvey Weinstein story for years until Ronan Farrow broke it, and now it appears that ABC News was sitting on Jeffrey Epstein stuff for years. These are the media you are going to trust? The public trust in the media is already at an all-time low. This is certainly not going to help — nor should it.
Robach said her comments were made, quote, “in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn&#8217;t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations” regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, and Bill Clinton. She added that in the years since the 2015 interview, “no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
An ABC News statement issued says, “At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story.”
Well, you kinda did, didn&#8217;t you? I mean, just a little bit? I mean, the fact is that if it didn&#8217;t meet your standards to air, well then presumably you should have kept digging. So that is a that is a pretty — it&#8217;s a pretty damning indictment of ABC News. 
That&#8217;s not what she’s saying there, right? I mean, what she&#8217;s saying in that clip is that she had the interview, she had the goods — she says she has pictures there. It’s different than than what she’s saying in her statement, her statements like [paraphrasing] “Oh well we didn&#8217;t have all the goods.” But in that tape she’s saying [paraphrasing], “Yeah, we pretty much had all of the goods.”
If the media was involved in covering up, or at least neglecting to investigate Jeffrey Epstein because they thought it was going to hurt the Clintons, that&#8217;s a massive, massive story, obviously, and goes again to the level of media bias that is involved in all of this. Pretty astonishing.
Mollie Hemingway over at The Federalist tweets: “In addition to these statements not actually being responsive to what the initial hot mic claims were, mostly what this shows that ABC News has indefensibly different standards for, e.g., Kavanaugh allegations or for Covington boys then [sic] it does for Clinton connected pedophiles.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
In addition to these statements not actually being responsive to what the initial hot mic claims were, mostly what this shows is that ABC News has indefensibly different standards for, e.g., Kavanaugh allegations or Covington boys then it does Clinton-connected pedophiles. <a href="https://t.co/grLZmo7iID">https://t.co/grLZmo7iID</a>
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) <a href="https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1191744311186075649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
Which is, of course, exactly right. They&#8217;re willing to run with any level of speculation, including false speculation about anything that hurts Republicans, but if it could possibly damn the Clintons, then all of a sudden they run away from this stuff like wholesale. Then, you wonder why the American people have trouble trusting the media? That would be the reason. 
 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Menu

Daily Wire

Articles by Daily Wire