Alabama moves to ban abortion, AOC declares war on Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren declares war on Fox NEWS, I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the venture show and okay we're going get to all of the meth making surrounding abortion law. Today we are going to get to the impact of the Alabama. A law that is likely going to be signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey today, but first in nineteen, sixty six Alan Greenspan famously said quote: deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. That is obviously true, but the federal deficit currently touching a trillion dollars every year. What are you doing to protect your savings from this confiscation scheme Greenspan offered one salute He said gold stands in the way of this insidious process. Could you afford another hit to your retirement like the last downturn, when the Snp drop fifty percent hedge against inflation, hedge against uncertainty and instability by diversifying at least a little bit with precious metals? Gold is a safe haven against uncertainty. My savings plan is diversified in yours should be as well. The company I trust with

no purchase is, is virtual group in right now, thanks to a little known, IRS tax like you, can even move that irate were eligible for one k into an IRA, backed by physical, gold and silver, which is perfect for people who would like to protect their hard earned retirement savings from future geopolitical uncertainty. Look back historically when the bottom falls out of everything else. Goal does tend to safeguard savings because it has never been more zero. Birch gold group has thousands of satisfied. Customers can't was five star reviews, an a plus rating with the better Business Bureau contact per school group and get a free information kit on physical, precious metals right now. That is comprehensive. Sixteen page get show me how gold and silver can protect your savings go check them out right now by texting bed, two hundred and forty seven, four thousand seven hundred and forty seven again text. My name been two hundred and forty seven, four thousand seven hundred and forty seven that's been two hundred and forty seven, four thousand seven hundred and forty seven okay, so the big controversy of the day rounds. The passage of this Alabama law, so Alabama has now moved to pass a law that effectively bans abortion in the state. Unlike the law in Georgia, that is, a heart, beat bill and says that for the first six weeks of pregnancy, you can

and get an abortion effectively on demand and then beyond six weeks. You cannot and then it punishes abortion The Alabama law goes even further. The Alabama, while goes right to the heart of the matter and says that the unborn are human lives. It says that they have the status of persons under Alabama LAW, and if this challenge is directly ROE versus Wade, ROE versus Wade says now. These are not persons, and instead, these are basically developing some things, and that means that, based on viability, standards, you can kill a baby or you can't tell a baby be Don viability stands are states can pass laws to prevent the killing of the unborn depending on viability and that the standard is x incredibly marking under ROE versus Wade, and then it gets even murkier under planned Parenthood versus Casey, which is a case from the late nineteen eighties. Early nineteen nineties moved its way up through the courts in which the court basically ruled to limit ROE versus Wade, but the real weight and said that you can't pass a law

create an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion. The undue burden standard has always been quite big, and my forecast has been that the Supreme Court with the new Republican appointed majority, would start paring back at planned Parenthood versus Casey, but would not over her really laid. It would leave in place the idea that woman has a quote unquote right to an abortion, but it would pare back at the length to which that right extends. I think that is still the likeliest for the Supreme Court Alabama is challenging it outright. However, they passed a law. Now it says abortion is banned in our state and abortion doctors can go to jail anywhere from ten years to ninety nine years and life begins at conception, is full pro life A lot of people on the right are uncomfortable with the pro the full pro life bill many of them are uncomfortable, mainly, I think, because of the objects, so the build not have an exception for rape and incest, which makes logical sense you know that it doesn't make a lot of emotional sense for people they're, saying well, woman gets raped. Now she has the burden of carrying this child to term you're right. It is a great

burden on the woman that she has to do this, which is why it's an act heroism for any woman to carry that child to term with that said, if you believe that human life is a human life in the womb. The fact that he grave wrong was done to initiate the creation of that life does not mean that the life itself is of no value, there's a logical distinction between the evil that was done to create the life in the first place and the presence of the life. Now that the life is present, that's why I've always been in favor of an exception in case of serious danger, to the mother, and that would include mental health. The woman is going to go crazy and harm herself, for example, is if a woman is going to to the sort of prestige become suicidal. An abortion, in my view, becomes an option because now the mobile, the mother's life, is in danger and you stick her life against the life of the human life in her womb Alabama. I think, by the way, does the right thing from a pro life perspective when it comes to rape and incest, concessions with regard to rape and incest have always been sort of a stop

public opinion rather than a principled stand about the value of human life, they also open the door to the argument. Ok. Well, if you are saying that a human life is not a human life, you don't want it to be a human life. Then why? Wouldn't you extend that to cases other than rape and incest. It's also worthwhile, noting that the left tends to point out arguments about rape and incest, because those are the most emotionally resonant cases in which people who are generally pro life would say. Well, maybe an abortion should be on the table that's why the left likes to pick on it. The reality is that rape and incest represent significantly less than one percent of all abortions in the United States, and so I've always said that if you are not looking to just challenge ROE V Wade out right, if what you're looking to do is create a consensus around abortion, what you say to folks on. The left is: listen, we'll leave rape and incest alone for the moment, and let's agree on the stuff that we can agree on, because what the left likes to do with the rape and incest exceptions. Is they like to say,

okay. Well, since everyone agrees that rape and incest exceptions should exist. Therefore, all abortions should be legal. The logic be the other way around. Okay, so let's even say that rape and incest exceptions should exist. Does that mean against all the other abortions, or are you just using me out liar case in order to justify abortion in the vast majority of cases? In any case, the harder pro life perspective, the the obvious pro life perspective. Here, when I say hard, I don't mean vicious and brutal hard. I just mean, like the bare bones pro life perspective says a human life in the will is what acting the matter how that human life is initiated. In any case, according to the New York Times, the Alabama Senate approved a measure on Tuesday that would outlaw almost all abortions in the state setting up a direct challenge to ROE versus Wade. The case, the recognized a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy, not even the euphemistic way that that the New York Times talk about this stuff is pretty amazing: the right to end a pregnancy that that's not ending a pregnancy, guys read. That is an editorial choice that you are

making is a right to an abortion at the very least, a right to snuff out of human life in the womb at the very most right to end a pregnancy? Ok, you have a miscarriage. That is your right to end a pregnancy right. There also have a right to prevent a pregnancy. I not getting pregnant in the first place Intel the way the New York Times likes to slanted stories from the very out. Set the legislation, bans abortions at every stage of pregnancy and criminalizes the procedure for doctors right not for women. So, although guys about how women are going to go to jail. This is the handmaid's tale. If women seeking abortion, then we're going to throw them in prison. None of that is true. The legislation is specifically directed in abortion. Doctors, because this has long been the pro life position, is that if you want to cut off abortion at the knees you have to go after the people who are making money off the

portions have to go after the people who are professionally performing those abortions in the same way that a lot of people, part of libertarian on drugs say that that use of drugs should not be treated harshly by criminal law, but distribution of drugs, a different story. The same thing is true. With regard to abortion, this does include an exception for cases when the mother's life is at serious risk, but not for cases of rape or the house approved the measure last month and now move to the desk of Governor Kay Ivey Republican now makes people very uncomfortable on the left that apparently, all the people who are behind this bill, more men there. Only for members of the Alabama Senate or women and they're all members of democratic party but they're neglecting the fact that the governor of Alabama is a woman, Kay Ivey and she agree he's with the republican caucus. Although the governor has not publicly committed to signing the legislation menu. Looking lawmakers expect for support

an email on Tuesday night, a spokeswoman for the governor, Laurie Davis, Johns, said ivy would quote withhold comment until she has had a chance to thoroughly review the final version of the bill that is passed now. Here's the reality. This bill is not going to go in, effect, barring the Supreme Court over ruling ROE V Wade, which is not going to happen. I've been saying for a long time. Justice Cavanagh is not going to vote for that. Justice Roberts is not going to for that. I have serious doubts whether the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, would vote to overturn ROE wait should they vote to overturn ROE V Wade? Of course, ROE V Wade is a garbage case. There is no precedent in the constitution for the idea that a public act like the killing of a third party with the consultation of a doctor constitutes a quote. Unquote right to privacy are right to privacy that is not rest in the constitution of the United States, yeah right against unreasonable search and seizure. That is not what this is. You have a variety of rights under the bill of rights

one of those right is not a generalized quote, unquote right to privacy and in fact we constantly violate the quote: unquote right to privacy in a bevy of circumstances. We violate the right to privacy when it comes to, for example, prosecuting people for for making death threats. You're, not not the threats that are specifically directed at at folks via email, but if you put something up on your public facebook age or something that is no less a non private event. Then going to a doctors office in ordering at abortion, we don't declare a right to privacy, and that there's no right to privacy when it comes to purchasing a gun. It's not just a question of you gun dealer getting together and doing it right there will generalize right to privacy in the constitution. You can't show me it because it doesn't exist. The reason the right to privacy was created is because the Supreme Court had a left, leaning majority. This left, leaning, Majora

decided that that, because of quote unquote emanations and the number is in the constitution, a generalized right to privacy was created, those in Griswold versus Connecticut, where the Supreme Court decided that a state could not restrict contraceptives, sales to married couples, and then it was extended forward to abortion, so this is this is all just made up. Stop Robbie weight is a very, very big. Add case, even if you are in an advocate of the right to abortion, there is nothing in ROE V Wade that is legally reasoned, ROE V Wade is a very poorly reason case, even people who are honest on the left like knowledge that it's a poorly reasoned case. It was all of that that will the Supreme Court overrule it. Now they don't have the stones to overrule ROE V Wade going to leave too late in case in place, because they don't want the blowback of having overrule the very, very bad case in and what they're likely to do as I've said before, is there likely to use the planned Parenthood versus Casey undue burden, standard and they're likely to simply gradually allow states to move closer and closer to conception or two or two

place more conditions on a woman's ability to get an abortion based on, for example, more information. She has to get an ultrasound test of a twenty four hour waiting period, that kind of stuff. That's why this is really about the legal challenge not about whether this is going to go into effect. It's very unlikely to go into effect. Opponents vowed to challenge the measure in federal court if it becomes law. Even the legislation's supporters expect that a lower court will block the measure, but it was drafted with exactly that in mind: correct the bands architects, reflecting the rising conference of abortion critics nationwide after the appointment of have in the Supreme Court hope the justices will use the case to reconsider the central holding in row and allow the Alabama measure to take effect. Eric Johnson, who founded the all memory alive pro life coalition. He said until now there was no prospect of reversing roe. He sees himself as a

First, on the abortion issue, he said he did not support a spate of restrictive legislation that other states have enacted in recent months, including so called fetal heartbeat bills. Given the current leanings of the Supreme Court Johnson said making such a measure, which does not directly challenge, read the subject of the courts made next major abortion case would be a wasted opportunity. He says Harbi bills, don't challenge the fundamental can at the heart of ROE V Wade, which is that these are not human lives. This is why not go all the way and just challenge the central holding in ROE V Wade, which is that these are not human lives and, let's overturn that thing. Well, it's not going to be overturned, but it is worthwhile at least clarifying where the court stands we're going to get some more of this in just one second. First, it is two thousand and nineteen everyone needs a great pair of wireless earbuds. Obviously, but before you go dropping hundreds of bucks on a pair, you need to check out wireless ear buds from Racon, so I have a pair of racon ear buds. They are fantastic, they are supremely comfortable II was given air

for my birthday by my wife. I use the Redskins instead because they are actually better and they said about half the price of any other premium wireless earbuds on the market and they sound just as amazing. The company was actually co, founded by Ray J. Celebrities like brandy and J R Smith are already using ray cons. Recon T fifty wireless you're about to totally change the game. For me, there so comfortably a bunch of options you can actually check out it. Did they actually fit In your ear better- and it really easy to take anywhere, unlike some of the other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are buds, are both stylish industry? No dangling wires, no stands in, of course, it'll just look right. They also sound fantastic as well. Ray kind offers their way this year, but for everyone, a range of colors at a great price go by go to buy ray con dot com, Slash Bin, to get twenty percent off your order, that is, by ray con dot com. Slash spending at twenty percent off rake on wireless here. But if you- and I am here now- is the time to get them one more, time at the by Ray Con R, a y c o and by ray con dot com, slash band, go check them out right now, they're, incredibly comfortable they're, cheaper than a lot of the other options that are on the market. The

cool looking you're really going to enjoy them. If you like, listening to the podcast on your on your ear buds, the best way to get a wireless pair by raycom dot com, slash bad you're, getting up to twenty percent off, that's pretty solid deal, so go check them out right now. So again, it's by raycom, dot com, slash band can't speak too highly about these, these these ear pods. They really are spectacular, you're, really really going to make a great gift to make a really good gift for anybody for birthday anniversary, so check them out right now, byreykon dot com. Ok center. Roger Smith are, in a Democrat, told his colleagues that during his wife's pregnancy with their son, doctors had told him it was unlikely. The child would be born alive. Smitherman said that he and his wife had decided to have the child anyway, that his son had been born with significant health problems. The significance he said is that I had a choice but that cuts against your argument. In other words, your son was born. Yes, he

significant health problems. It is good that he was born. The law is supposed to protect people with health problems. Democrats in abortion rights advocates then use the argument that the measure would drive the procedure underground, endangering the lives of women and girls. Well, you know what the lives of babies legal abortion. I love the argument that the only life that matters here is the life of the women or girls and quality of life of women and girls. You have another option. That is where the baby There are many people who are willing to adopt. Now. It's hilarious there, a bunch of people. Yesterday when I defended the pro life position, line. So I don't see you adopting any of these kids. That's true not right now in the motor? Maybe sometime in the future, my wife and I will drop, but I'm not adopting right now. I have two kids of my own I also have a generalized rule. I am not in favor of being able to murder anyone. I don't adopt it's three terrible argument like in general. I'm not I'm, not in favor of you being able to kill the homeless man down the street. I don't plan on adopting him and making him my legal ward. I don't think you should be able to stab him in the face

pretty terrible argument and many of the arguments on the pro choice side are insanely terrible. Really really bad will get to a few more of those arguments in just a second, the Senate took, bill again on Tuesday. After earlier time to debate. The measure last week descended into shouting and chaos. Tensions erupted, including within the dominant Republican Party over whether to include exceptions to the ban in cases of rape and in A Senate committee had amended the bill to include those exceptions, prompting a bitter dispute that postpone consideration of the bill. For days now, the reason again, if you're, making a legal challenge. The reason you don't include rape and incest is because that allows the Supreme Court to instead say You yourself are not challenging the central holding of ROE V Wade, which is that unborn human life is not in fact human life because they can say a well in cases of rape and incest. That's also a human life, but you're allowed you're you're already allowing other considerations to take hold. Purpose is a legal challenge. You want the bill to be as strict as possible others

it measures to restrict abortion rights in advance in the South Midwest. This you're inviting legal fights the governors of Georgia, Kentucky Mississippi and Ohio and feel heartbeat bills. Arkansas moved up the cut off point for legal abortions to eighteen weeks of pregnancy, twenty which, by the way, it is insane that it is considered the quote: unquote reasonable position, for legal abortions to remain until eighteen weeks of pregnancy. That's crazy! I mean you are talking at that point. Eighteen weeks of pregnancy, you are talking about four one: slash two months of pregnancy, An abortion is still legal at that point in the fetus is so well developed. At that point, it's I mean it's fully functioning heart fully functioning, fully functioning stream. The brain is already in the in serious development stages, the alibi The measure goes further in addition to the potential ninety nine year sentence for performing abortions, doctors face the threat of a ten year term for attempting to perform one. Women who receive abortions would not be prosecuted, so do not believe the propaganda that is being put out there right now and the problem with a lot of the pro choice

that's the problem for them is that they continue to make arguments that are truly. Truly. Morally, egregious call Jamil? Is an actress you've seen her on the good place and she apparently had an abortion and here's what she? it out, I had an abortion when I was young, it was the best decision I have ever made well. You know it would've better decision is to not get pregnant. In the first place, it was the best I've ever made ever in all her life for best decision was killing her own unborn child. Both for me and for the baby I didn't want and wasn't

emotionally psychologically and financially it so number one is acknowledging. It is baby number two. She is saying that it was best for the baby to die. Name me, a circumstance in which is best for you to die.

And for you to die is it best for you to die. This is a pretty astonishing statement. I can promise you. It was not the best thing for the baby to die and she says so. Many children will end up in foster homes, so many lives ruined so very cruel. I promise you that a child in a foster home would still prefer to live, then simply be chopped apart in the moon, so many lives ruined his life. Is ruined her baby who never got to live in the first place, pretty astonishing statement. She doesn't she says this, isn't any? Does it all the foster homes, I'm in awe of people who take in children in need of a

family in a home out of Georgia comes inundated with children who are unwanted or unable to be cared for, it'll be hard to find great fostering for the mall on foster homes. I see that's. Obviously that means you should kill everyone and countries with lots of very, very poor people, wear their lots of street or the best thing to do probably run up and kill them, probably, but unfortunately, when it comes to the left and and abortion. The logic of the left on abortion is completely and and thoroughly unsympathetic to the very idea that there is a life in the womb. It is biologically correct. There is a human life in the womb, obviously, and that life does begin at conception. There is no other definition of human life that makes any sort of logical sense. When people say human life begins at brain activity. Okay, so, if you have somebody who is in a coma, can you kill

let me know when they say: human life begins at viability. Well, then, my kids aren't viable. Now, if I left my three year old alone for half a day, he would be dead because he is a crazy person, because all three year olds are crazy Certainly. This is true of newborn babies, who cannot support themselves feed themselves and are completely dependent on their parents to take care of them and a lot of old people who are dependent on care takers. When people say that the standard should be sent to, it will when you are asleep you are not sentient. Does this mean that we can kill you obviously not when people say well, it's different. So maybe it's not sentients as a state of being yes for a temporary time, and then the baby is when people try to make a distinction between well, it's an embryo or it's a fetus or whether it's a baby question. Is it a human life or is it not? That is the only category that actually matters here. That is the only category that matters insofar as the quote, unquote choice to perform an abortion. Now what people tend to do

is they will pick hard cases now. The rule in law is what we used in law school used to describe it as hard cases make bad law, in other words, cases in which you are simple to one side tend to make for general rules, and so the less likes to do is pick hard cases. That's why they picked the rape and incest cases. That's why they like to pick cases of of Tay Sachs Babies, but hard cases make bad law, in other words the general principle which the human life ought to be protected, and the government has a role in protecting human life is obviously true. One of the things that that I found calare as yesterday. Is the advocates of abortion who, as a counterargument to both the Georgia bill and the Alabama bill were saying. Well now that you're declaring these these fetuses human life. Why don't you force men to pay child support during pregnancy? And the answer is I'm with you man do it absolutely you know couple ladies shouldn't be able to take off. You should have to pay for that, because the fact is that you created that and you're responsible

for all of that. So not only do I not have a problem with that, I'm on the side of that. Probably people have thought, through the consequences of the of the actions that they are pro choice, people by and large, or at least the pro choice position by and large, has not actually thought through the consequences of its own positions. It is just settled for what is convenient in terms of what they think people should live like, so they think that abortion is good because it's convenient. They think that, in order to facilitate that convenience, we should rule out of bounds. All serious discussions about what constitutes human life or, at the very least, what they do. Is they then demagogue, the issue? They say things like okay. Well, let's say that you're in a room with a fertilized and Braille and a five year old child in the in the room is on fire, which one do you save? That's not the question let's say that you're in a room with an embryo, do you kill it? That is the question right. It's not choose between one life in another. We acknowledge that if the question is one life is in danger and that life happens to be fully born and one life is not

That's why they, even the Alabama law, makes an exception for the life of the mother, obviously, but that does not obviate the question as to whether human life ought to be protected. Ok, so in the second we're going to the twenty twenty race, but first there are a lot of things in life that are not right carpet and showers, for example, chunky style, milk, ejector seats on helicopters, none of those things are right, but thanks to mid mobile, you don't have to overpay for wireless anymore. With meant mobile, you can cut your wireless bill down to just fifteen bucks a month. They reimagine imagine wireless making it easy and online only, which means they can have significant savings directly to you. Men mobile makes it easy to cut your wireless bill down just fifteen bucks a month use your own phone with any meant mobile plan. You can keep your old number along with all of your existing contacts with Mint Mobile, choose between plans with three thousand eight hundred and twelve gigabytes of four G Lte Data stop paying for unlimited data that you'll never use. Every plan comes with unlimited nationwide. Talk and text, if you are not one hundred percent, satisfied mean mobile. Has you covered with their seven day money back guarantee?

did your old wireless bill start saving with meant mobile, to get that new wireless plan for just fifteen bucks a month and get the plan shipped to your door for free what it meant: mobile dot com, slash span that is meant to mobile dot com. Slash span cut your wireless bill. Do fifteen bucks a month, get free shipping on your middle of land and many more? dot com. Slash then go check it out right now, again, you're going to be saving tons of money. A lot of these phone companies are charging you exorbitant fees for supposedly unlimited that you're never going to use instead go to mint mobile com and cut your wireless bill all the way down to fifteen bucks a month and by the way the coverage is fantastic. I mean you're still going to get reception because the reception is provided by These that provide your normal reception anyway go check out, meant mobile dot com, slash span that is meant to mobile dot com. Slash band go check it out right now. I want to talk for a second about ROE V Wade and what the decision actually holds. So the decision itself, has been ripped by many legal scholars, including John Hart Eli. Who is no right, winger, saying that the decision is quote not constitutional.

I think it's almost no sense of an obligation to try to be done are you. I said what what is frightening about row is that the super protected right is not in for a bill from the language of the constitution, the framers thinking respecting the specific problem in issue any general value derivable from the positions they included or the nation's governmental structure, Laurence Tribe, who about as left as it gets said quote. One of the most curious things about row is that behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substance of judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found Now, as I say, planned Parenthood versus Casey is the court is the case. The court is likely to rely upon when it comes down to it and well it the rose holding about viability. It abandon, rose trimester framework in favor of fetal viability. More generally, so role was more specific about about the standard. They said that third trimester abortions, you could be around Klay have restrictions on no none in the second trimester, not in the first trimester, but planned Parenthood versus Casey moved to fetal viability. The ROE decision define viable as

potentially able to live outside the mothers womb I'll, be it with artificial aid. Justice In case you acknowledged, viability could occur at twenty three or twenty four weeks even earlier. In light of medical advances, the opinion of the court is a joke. The opinion in ROE is just bad and they just make it up. Ackman wrote it, of course it the the Republicans, have a wonderful record of appointing justices. Harry Blackmun wrote quote this right of privacy, whether it be founded in for I think, amendments concept of personal liberty and restrictions on state action as we feel it is or in the ninth amendments. Reservation of rights to the people is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision, whether or not to terminate her pregnancy That's insane statement. Basically, this right we're creating out of thin air. It could be in the 14th. Amendment could be in the ninth amendment could be anywhere man. I have no idea, but we're just cleared out there and say that it now covers abortion. The court that the court basically spends no time establishing that a generalized right to privacy exist.

The court said that, having on one two children called may force upon the woman, a distrustful life and future. This is a piece of leftist propaganda. The court didn't say that that a right to abortion was absolute. It said that the the other considerations would include protecting pre natal life, and then they get down to the crux of the matter. They say we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins when those trained in their respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and allergy are unable to arrive at any consensus. The judiciary in this point of the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer, and that, of course, is absolute, sheer nonsense? Virtually everyone in Madison Philosophy and theology has declared that life begins at conception, because it does biologically speaking, an independent human life begins at conception. There is no other point that you can declare that life begins. The court in row settled on three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework he said that the court at that there could be no risk.

Tions a woman's ability during the first trimester after the first trimester, the court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to mothers health give the state a compelling interest, and it could enact medical regulation so long as there are reasonable and narrowly tailored and then at the beginning of the Trimester they said that there could be affected. Lee knew that that there could effectively be prohibitions on abortion where necessary to protect a mother's life or health. It didn't have the martian that was, that was basically the way that that works and then planned parenthood versus ac significantly sort of limited that it's a bad ruling in and of itself planned Parenthood versus Casey, and they crafted. As I said, the undue burden standard for abortion restriction, restrictions under role of the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester, theoretically interland Parenthood versus Casey. They could so. As I said, the likely outcome of all of this is that the court broadens the standard under and parenthood versus Casey, but does not overrule ROE V Wade. Even though

wait, as I have said, is a garbage case that has virtually no support in the con. It might have virtually. No, I mean none no support in the constitution whatsoever. Saturday, O'Connor wrote the opinion in planned Parenthood versus Casey, and it is not a good opinion. It is a very, not good opinion. None the less. It will continue to be the standard simply because the Supreme Court is a group of people who basically decide to make politics with the make politics dominate the law. The law is less important than polish, and thus the court has continuously acted as a political body, not as a legal body. Unfortunately, in violation of the prescriptions of the Federalist papers, in which Tender Hamilton argued that if ever the court should simply be using its will as opposed to the interpretation of the law, it would lose its rays on that there would be no reason for it to exist. Ok, meanwhile, the twenty twenty race is finally starting to get interesting and it's getting interesting because of the. AOC man. She is really going after to AOC. Does not, launch abiding, she represents the quote: unquote: Justice, Democrat Wing of the party, the

medical wing of the Democratic Party, the wing of the Party that Nancy Pelosi has derided his having about three people, but she does get all the publicity she's going after Joe Biden, she's, apparently deciding between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders right now. If she endorses Elizabeth Warren that couldn't in be death knell for Bernie Sanders is lagging campaign. Yesterday, however, her chief focus was going after Joe Biden, who she certainly doesn't want as the nominee, because he's quote unquote to moderate here. She is in slamming Biden over his supposed middle of the road stance with regard to climate change, I'll be damned if the same politicians who refuse to act then are going to try to come back today and say we need a middle of the middle of the road approach to save our lives. That is too much for me. We cannot. We cannot and we will not.

Anything less than a solution to save ourselves. And that's exactly what this says. Okay, so that is a slap at Joe Biden. Joe Biden responded by saying in in in in you know, she's not slapping at me. Everyone took it as a slap at Joe Biden, because, basically, what that means Joe Biden himself was booed when he was mentioned as having supposedly said that had a middle of the road stand, climate change now he says I'm not middle of the guys 'cause. I'm far left, but just just love me love me. I've never been in the middle road in the environment, and I tell her to check you know the the statement that I made and look at my record she'll find that nobody has been. Consistent about taking on the environment and agree, revolution I have until so, anyway, but I saw ii, can't I don't think she's talking right now

doesn't think she's talking about him, yeah Joe. She was talking about you and, if you think, you're going to escape so easily, he sounds old there. He really does, and it's a problem for him, because the new vibrant wave of youthful Democrats and got all the passion and all the all the moves in there hip and they can dance they're they're, really not going to accept the John. Let's go figure that is Joe Biden when it comes to their their full push for socialism Ok in a second we're going to get more from the twenty twenty race in the dilemma of Joe Biden, but first folks you need to make sure that you tune in tomorrow at seven hundred pm eastern four hundred Pm Pacific for latest episode of the conversation. The execrable Michael moles will be answering. Your questions live on air. So make them good. As always, Alicia will be there to keep nulls in line. The episode will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and Youtube. Only subscribers can ask the questions so subscribe to get your questions answered by Michael Knowles tomorrow at four hundred pm eastern seven hundred Pm Pacific join, the converse,

my first question: why do you have a job? I will I'm really hoping that Michael's answers that one properly and if he does not, then we get rid of them, but I suppose that you can ask him any question. You choose. I just think of the whole areas of every question you ask was that so it it. I'm not saying you should understand totally should do that. Okay, also, you should come subscribe for a variety of reasons. Are your subscriber should help us bring the show to you every day and how our staff, it helps make sure that we are insulated from the jackasses will replace like media matters. Your subscriber ship make sure that we can continue to bring you great content, even of social media giants, decide to crack down on conservative. That's what your subscribership does. We always appreciate it. Nine hundred and ninety nine a month and for that yet all sorts of goodies, including two additional hours of me live on video every single day. We are

hard for your money, also get the annual subscription for ninety nine dollars. You get this. The leftist here is hot or cold tumblr now notice, it does not say I get a lot of questions about this particular vessel. It says leftist here is not liberal tears. Liberals, you don't have to make liberals cry: they're, nice people who just disagree with you on politics leftist here so people who actually want to restrict people from speaking people whose idea is to to block Andrew Klavan from speaking at a university by locking the doors, which is what happened last night and one of these universities. Those tears we treasure and we hold them and we store them in this vessel. The leftist here's, hot or cold tumblr go check it out right now for ninety nine dollars a year you can get. The leftist here is hot or cold tumblr cheaper than the monthly subscription. Anyway, also you get extra access or Sunday special. It comes out on Saturday. Instead, you get extra questions behind the paywall, all sorts of goodies, I'm starting a new project today, without the permission of or go ahead and my business partner, I'm just starting it because man, I'm bored I'll, be honest with you. This news cycles will slow, so I'm just going to start something and I think it will be available mostly for subscribers, I'm not going to tell you

but now suffice it to say it should be kind of awesome, so go check this out right now subscribe, leave us a review over at Youtube or Itunes, where our listenership is extraordinary, where the second most listen to podcasts in America by statistics last month. Let's make it number one this month will leave us a review. We always appreciate it where the large, fastest growing concern a podcast and radio show in the nation, uhhuh all righty. So when Joe Biden again, he is trying to escape the ramifications of the fact that he is moderate enough to win a general election but to moderate for the the excited wing of his base, that does make a difference. If your base is not super excited about. If they're, mostly motivated by how much they don't like the other guy, they better hate that guy with a rampant passion, and they must they they better Felix emergency like if, like economy the economy is good,

are generally okay in their lives, and they just don't really like truck very much. I'm not sure that that is enough to get them over the hump. That means that you have to have one of two things: either broad public appeal or a very, very excited base by Donald Trump, barely got over the hump against a candidate, the Republicans loads Hillary Clinton, because there was a segment of the base that was super excited about Donald Trump. I'm not sure in the democratic basis, super excited about Joe Biden, they hope that has brought appeal. The problem is that he may have to choose between the broad appeal and the very excited you know the people who are going to knock on doors that people who are going to spend their days phone banking? Are those people going to do that for Joe Biden? It's a serious question and a Bernie Sanders they're ripping on Joe Biden about this here is Bernie Sanders and a sub.

Meeting Joe Biden on climate change when you're dealing with the future of the planet and making sure that our kids and our grandchildren have a healthy and habitable world in which to live. I don't know how you go to fall. I mean this is an existential threat not just to the United States but to the entire planet. We have and moral obligation to come the climate change, to bring the entire world to get. This is not an american issue. This is a global issue to bring the world together the transformer energy system, away from fossil fuel, to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and Donna to make we don't have a choice. We don't have a choice. We have to not a lot to widen. It's the only way that this is Bernie Sanders, a pet and also it's Bernie Sanders is pushing Medicare for all a proposal, so popular with the democratic base that all of the fence, sitters, like Kamala Harris, have come down in favor of it, at least when they're, not against it. Joe Biden, however, He said that he does not support turning Medicare into a national health insurance program for everyone, because quote, the vast majority of people are satisfied with their own healthcare system. Today he said he favors making

Medicare option available to all people it would you be able to keep your own insurance if you are satisfied so he's in favor of a quarter of public option, but the problem with the quote: unquote: public option is that if people are opting into Medicare and doctors are not taking Medicaid, Well, then, you're not going to be getting very good care through Medicare is one of the reasons why people like Joe it, while like people like Bernie Sanders when Medicare for all proponents have said. We need to eliminate private health insurance as an option, because too many healthy people are going to be buying. Private health insurance, and that means that Medicare for all is going to be incredibly expensive. Basically, the only people who are going to get Medicare for all or Medicare for a public option are going to be high risk people, so the government absorbs the cost for all the hiring people. The reimbursement rates are too low. Those people still can't get care from the doctors that they want. So we have to force. Everyone is one giant pool the up Medicare for all the question in health. Insurance is always risk pools, and the problem is that if you, if you do bifurcate the risk pools into how

the people and not healthy people and then on healthy people, end up on the government dole and healthy people all end up getting private health insurance. Then the government ends up footing in enormous enormous burden in order to get those people health care in the first place, so that that that is why the Joe Biden Plan has largely been opposed by democrats on the other hand. It's been opposed by Republicans the public option, because there is the looming risk that public option quickly turns into Medicare for all, because the government can also subsidized at a rate that no one else can so you could see a world where the government start subsidizing Medicare. What that the public option and everybody simply dumpster private health insurance, employer, start dumping, private health insurance and tossing people on to the Medicare rolls and private insurance industry dies, and then doctors are basically roped into de facto Medicare for all so Joe Biden has picked the least popular option: option option is actually the least popular option is Medicare for all

hardcore, Bernie Ites, love that and then there's private health insurance without a public option and Republicans are generally in favor of that. And then there is the public option: option which is so unpopular that Barack Obama couldn't even get a public option through his own party right, you control the Senate and the house. You could not get a public option through his own party. That is Joe Biden's position, because he's quote unquote moderate now the way he's trying to make for the fact that he is quote unquote. Moderate is by suggesting an by the way his moderation before I get to that his moderation extends to his prior record, so he was confronted about his crime bill yesterday. Now he's been trying to make amends for his one thousand nine hundred and ninety four support. For the crime bill. I don't think you should have to make amends for a crime bill that help lower the crime rate dramatically and when people say well led to mass incarceration right it locked up more criminals. You have to show me all the innocent people who went to jail because of the nineteen ninety four crime bill when people say that it was racially biased. The ninety four crime bill going to show me how you can't just show me that just

number of minorities in prison, you're going to have to show me that they were wrongfully arrested, wrongfully, prosecuted and wrongfully convicted yay. Nothing to apologize, for, in my view, the nineteen ninety four crime bill and he's been trying to apologize for none the less he has to apologize, because the Woke base has suggested that the ninety four crime, was a great evil. Even though, in nineteen ninety four crime rates in the United States were out of control, intercity politicians or supporting the crime bill

go ahead and says that, but that is going to be popular with a vast majority of his own base. So I'm curious how you're going to really repair a lot of the black and brown communities that have been ravaged by the war on drugs in mass incarceration. Folks, let's get something straight. Ninety two out of every one hundred prisoners in a behind the bars are in a state prison, not a federal prison. This idea that the crime bill generated mass incarceration it did not generate mass incarceration. What happened is the mass incarceration in curd by the states? Setting mandatory sentence is what happened was if you go back and look the black. Caucus supported the bill. So folks we don't need anymore, mandatory sentences period. Ok, what's hilarious about that that we don't need any mandatory sentence is: is that he often mandatory sentences were better for a lot of the people convicted because they even the playing field.

Problem is without mandatory minimums or without mandatory maximums. What you end up with his judges, basically deciding. So if you want to remove bias from the system the tory minimums are actually in even more even way of doing all this. But again the real problem for Joe Biden here is: who is he? Is he quote unquote, moderate Joe from the past, or is he progressive Joe for the future? This is why Joe Biden is trying to bridge that gap with simple trump patriots trying to paste over this particular gap is trying to spackle over that that gap in the wall by talking about Trump is an illegitimate president. He was confronted yesterday by a woman who who's started, talking about Trump was was installed by the Russians, and Joe Biden did something truly terrible areas he's illegitimate and my biggest fear is that he's going to do it again with the help of why, at his best pal and we're gonna, be stuck for six more years of this guy, and that is terra,

would you be my vice presidential candidate folks, look you're, absolutely right, and now they have an investigation of the investigators who are investigating whether or not Vladimir Putin and the Russians engaged in trying to affect our like give me a break gosh almighty. Ok, that is an astonishing statement by Joe Biden so Funny Joe Biden said that he used to be he's very close with John Mccain and there were good buddies and these to hang out. I'm old enough to remember that in two thousand and eight John Mccain was at a rally, and somebody got up at the rally and said that Bro Obama is Muslim and John Mccain shut him down. He said no Barack Obama is not a Muslim and you have no evidence that he is a Muslim and you shouldn't try to hit him with charges that are untrue and the media gave him virtually no credit at the time. They suggested that John Mccain was still crazy, old codger and then they back aka Mama, despite the fact that John Mccain did that? Only later? Did they come as a what a decent man? That John Mccain was remember that John Mccain and stood up to his own party when somebody said that, well what that lady

There is flatly untrue. Donald Trump did not win because the Russians were working with Donald Trump. To put him in, the White House is not an illegitimate president and yet you're not hearing Joe Biden shut it down. It's one of my pet peeves with a lot of folks on the left when it comes to the emperor and the the the placing of standards they're all too eager to insist that Republicans place standards and then when it's their turn to actually uphold the standard against their own supporters. They won't do it. They are nowhere to be found. They run for the hills. I've mentioned before that. There's this tendency on the left to suggest that they want to play. The markets of queensberry rules and then, when it, when it comes down to it, those rules go I can see that during the last election cycle, what it was Donald Trump is an evil, evil, evil man for using Wikileaks material, while Hillary Clinton was actively soliciting material from Ukraine to use against Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, as reported by politico. Virtually no big media coverage in there was none in twenty sixteen and mediacom

even in two thousand and seventeen when this came out was incredibly muted. There's a reason that Republicans finally got tired and said: listen Donald Trump doesn't play the rules, because you guys don't play by the rules. There is there's a great temptation in politics to abandon the rules if you feel that your opponent is not playing by them, and Democrats have repeatedly refused to play by the rules. It's it's it's one. Eight. This is, in fact how you got from this is in fact I got from you Donna John Mccain, who calls out a lie about his political opponents, are in presidential race and is castigated is a

racist, sexist bigot homophobe anyway, and then you have Joe Biden who refuses to stand up to a random crowd. Member who says that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president, and it's not just Joe Biden. You've got Beto O'Rourke praising Stacey Abrams for refusing to accept the results of election, so Beto trying to pander to his base. Would it be better if NATO said listen, Stacey Abrams is a great candidate and she lost her raise instead he's on the view yesterday and he says no Stacey Abrams she's broke. She accepted her election with grace. What in the world is he talking about? She has spent the last several months on the campaign trail proclaiming that she was jobs out of the governorship of Georgia, even though she lost by fifty five thousand votes- and there is no math by which you want here Beto O'Rourke, actively

working to undermine faith in electoral institutions about five minutes after Democrats said that Trump was going to do it and it's going to be super bad Stacey Abrams. Who is a real hero to me, the grace with which she met that defeat on an unfair unlevel playing field with the Secretary of State, perhaps rigging in parts that election kiss on democracy form a new voting rights ACT, ensuring that every single vote counts in this country. Is firing stuff, at a time that our democracy is so badly broken. Okay, this is just like what, in the world They. What that? The of that not a word that is true, I mean stand, that that Beto is desperately trying to get back in this race. Eventually, he'd like to be able to to buy more than one shirt. I thank, but he is but but that's crazy talk when it when it. What are the Democrats ever gonna have a sister Soulja moment. Sister Souljah moment was named after a Democrat. Bill Clinton was talking about a will.

It's sister, a soldier who said something racially charged, and he came back at her and said that is not true don't haven't had one of those in a very very long time. Instead, they have allowed capture of their own base by radicals now there's another example: Democrats have been claiming that Donald Trump is inciting violence against the press. Then what he does is he attacks members of the press in order to delegitimize the president This is a threat to the first amendment. This is a threat to our institutions. Jim Acosta is writing a whole book about it guys he's reading his audio book in an air condition studio about the great threat to the american Press from Donald Trump at the same time in Venice, What is throwing CNN reporters out of the country? Well now with Warren, is tweeting out about how Fox NEWS is not really media, how they are a quote: unquote, hate for profit, racket they give the megaphone to racist and conspiracists is designed to turn us against each other, risking life and consequences to provide cover for the corruption is rotting. Our government in hollowing out our middle class. In other words, you might say, according to Elizabeth Warren, that Fox NEWS is fake news,

that's what you might say. If you're Elizabeth Warren, she says hate for profit only works if there's profit, so Fox NEWS balance is a mix bigotry, racism and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it's a reputable news out what it's all about, dragging in add money, big ad money- in other words, they are corrupt, evil organization that effectively ought to be shut down is what Elizabeth Warren is contending, and then she posted this video with pictures of of Sean Hannity and Tucker. Carlson is actually just a gift of Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham Judge Jeanine in in red. In the background as a stop the hate for profit, Fox NEWS rack, I mean this is straight from the media MAC at media matters, play book now. Does this constitute incitement? Does this constitute an attack on the press? Does this constitute an attack on the first amendment? Now she can say whatever she wants, I don't really care. I don't care that President Trump has attacked what he believes to be members of the press, one for eye care when he missed labels them such. I can't really miss labels and such and I

here. What Elizabeth Warren says that Fox NEWS is a hateful profit racket and that people like Brett Baer are apparently just being used as floozies by the Fox NEWS Brand, in order to legitimize the brand. I mean on a business level. This isn't even true. It's not true. The fact is that advertisers want to add. Ties on all the shows Elizabeth Warren hates because they get good ratings, fax. It bread bear doesn't exist at that to to rip on Brett, Bear or Dana Perino or Martha Mccallum or Shannon Bream, by suggesting that they're just fronts for showing it like they're, not independent. Human beings is pretty perverse but Elizabeth Warren. Does it all the time the twenty twenty Democrats are demonstrating full scale that all of the rules? They say that Donald Trump broke they've been saying that Donald Trump broke american politics? This proves my statement. Donald Trump did not break american politics and american politics was broken long before Donald Trump. Trump is a symptom of that broken politics. He said. Were

it's too that broken politics? He is not in and of himself he breaking force that doesn't mean he's made, are broken politics better. It does mean that if you're blaming Donald Trump for divisions in America, you have a memory span of a fully and you're blinding yourself actively to the Democr a party right now and how they are doing all the things they accused president Trump of doing in a in a on a regular basis already. So

Let's do some things I like, and then let's do some things that I hate so things that I like today. So yesterday I did John with one now I'm gonna get to the John with movie. That is better. I know this is a controversial opinion. John Wick two is is better. It is more amusing. I it is more interesting. It's more comic book. He basically John. What one is a straight forward: revenge drama in which about half half an hour in a turn from straight for revenge drama into sort of comic book you stop when he gets to the continental hotel, the continents, hotels, this hotel for assassins- all that is the most fun part of John Wick Channel. Two is entirely that to the entire thing is the continental, hotel and assassins trying to kill other assassins? an it's just great. Here's a little bit of the trailer welcome to Rome. Is this a formal event or a social affair, social? How many buttons too, and what style

Mr Wick do enjoy your party. So I'm John, like bench right now, because of course, John with three comes out this weekend, which is the only thing that really matters I am. I am. I've got my wife into the John with movies. Now, and she is one thing I love about my wife when you're married for for a while we're married eleven years in July when you're married for awhile one of the most fun things that your spouse is when they randomly surprise. You and my wife is the kind of person who likes to watch chick flicks like real check, flex she's the kind of person who doesn't really like violence in These are anything she really likes, the John like movies and is a really charming like the fact that you think that these are really fun and hilarious. It's pretty great, and for this she likes real. I like she, she loves die hard, which is hysterical a lot of folks in the office and that my wife, they know how funny this is my

is is, unlike me, one of the nicest people on planet earth, and so the fact that she loves John Wick is just great there's a dark side of my wife that I really enjoy time for a couple of things that that I hate already so one of the- One of the stupidest things in I politics that happened over the last couple of years is: there is a rest, call, the red head in Lexington Virginia and that restaurant through Sarah Huckabee, yes, Sir, how can the center of the press secretary for the President of the United States sat down for a meal, and he said you are not welcome here now I I have long been an advocate. If you do not want to have somebody at your restaurant, you should not be forced to have somebody at your restaurant. I think it's an idiotic aspect of the Civil Rights ACT in the private establishments are told what they can and cannot do. Jim Crow laws were designed to tell private establishment.

What they could or could not do people tend to forget it wasn't an informal regime alone of Jim Crow in the south. It was a very formal regime that prevented restaurants from, for example, having desegregated seating in places like Mississippi and Alabama, and if you violated that any government would find you they would come in and they would harm you Z, rights ACT in a lot of wonderful things. One of the things I think that was not so wonderful. Is it conflated public with private and suggested that the federal government has the authority to tell private business owners how to conduct their business if they were quote unquote: public accommodations now we're seeing the public accommodations rules expands it out to include virtually every area of human activities that the government can regulate it. That's what we're seeing in the so called equality ACT being pushed by Democrats. Well, I think you should be able to have whoever you want not eat at your restaurant or eat at your restaurant, and that includes people. I disagree with like Stephanie Wilkinson, so Stephane Wilkinson did something that I disagree with and I think it's quite horrible. She said that the

Sarah Huckabee Sanders cannot eat at a restaurant. I think that's wrong. If I owned a restaurant, I would certainly allow Democrats to to my restaurant. I would certainly allow Jay Carney or Robert Gibbs to come in and have a meal. I wouldn't have any problem with that, and I find it really that anybody would have a problem with that. Just the same as find it silly. If a gay couple came into my restaurant and sat down to eat, I would like get out now as a religious person. It's a different thing. If you are asking me to participate in a same sex wedding, but you just want to come in and eat just like anybody else would want to come and eat. I have no problem with that, but Sir Stephanie Wilkinson is being praised by the Washington Post for decision If she had made it against either a Democrat or against a person of any other group would be insane. Instead, they run this puppies. My by Stephanie Wilkinson called on the red hen. Restaurant that ask Sarah Sanders to leave resistance, isn't futile. So, in other words, everybody should do this. We should divide the country along political lines, by pursuing all of this? Now, as I say, I think she has the right to do this. I think that she should do it if you

sue and I think other people should stop eating at the red hen and if people want to support the red head because of this, they could do that too. It's a free country that is fine with me, but the fact that the Washington Post is printing this piece and the fact of the Washington Post is taken repeatedly the editorial position, if, if you are Jack, Phillips on a cake shop and you don't want to cater a same sex wedding that you are an emissary of the evil and intolerance in the United States is wildly inconsistent and demonstrates once again when it comes to the left. The double standard is simple: if it is good for the left and therefore it if it is bad for the left and they are against it, there is no other standard. There is no objective standard of law. That applies equally to everyone. There's no objective the morality that applies equally to everyone. If you are on the hard left or purely on the editorial Board over the Washington Post. Okay, we'll be back here a little bit later today, with two additional hours of content or we'll see you here tomorrow, I, This is the Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro. This is the Ben Shapiro, show producer, Jeremy, boring senior producer. Jonathan, hey are supervising

user is Mathis Glover and our technical producer is Austin. Stevens by Adam Sigh of its audio is mixed by my car, mean hair and makeup is by Jeshua Olvera Production Assistant, Nick the Ben Shapiro Show is a daily wire production, copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen The state of Alabama passes the most restrictive abortion law in the country. We examine the legal and political ramifications and ask the question on everybody's mind: will we live to see the overturning of ROE V Wade check it out on the Michael Knowles, show