Speaker 1True self-reliance begins with taking control of your health. Our sponsor, Armra Colostrum, harnesses nature's original blueprint for resilience. Our bodies face constant pressure from toxins, processed foods, relentless stress. Armra Colostrum is a bioactive whole food, a pure concentrate of bovine colostrum that's sustainably sourced with a commitment to calf-first sourcing. With over 400 bioactive nutrients, it fortifies your entire gut wall system and strengthens your immune system from the cellular level up. This means balanced immune health, better digestion, less bloating, and support for healthy metabolism and fat burning from the inside out. Elite athletes have been using Colostrum for years because it enhances nutrient absorption, builds lean muscle, and speeds recovery. But the benefits go way deeper. Cellular-level support for hair, skin, energy, everything. This isn't processed or manipulated. It's pure, potent, and natural. Your body's blueprint for rebuilding itself the way it was designed to function. When you invest in your health, you invest in your ability to show up fully, think clearly, and stay in control no matter what comes your way. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Head on over to armra.com slash Shapiro or enter Shapiro to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Shapiro. We'll get to more on this in just one second. First, you know, 20 years ago, man, a lot has happened in my life. I was 22 years old. I was not yet married. Now, just think back over the past 20 years. Wife, five kids, big business, all of it. Well, 20 years is a long time. Simply Safe is now celebrating 20 years again. Most companies don't make it that long unless they're actually solving a real problem. When you're picking a security system for your home, what you're looking for is peace of mind. The goal is not to obsess over your security. The goal is to never have to think about it. And that's what I like about Simply Safe. Most home security systems are designed for after something goes wrong, after the window breaks, after someone gets inside, after your phone buzzes. Simply Safe's approach is different. It's designed to help stop a break-in before it happens. Their AI-powered outdoor cameras detect suspicious activity around your home, alert live US-based agents. Those agents can actually speak through the camera to scare off trespassers, and if necessary, request 911 dispatch. Prevention beats reaction. Simply Safe has been protecting your world for 20 years. Celebrate their anniversary with us and save 60% on your new Simply Safe system at simplysafe.com slash Shapiro. That's 60% off at simplysafe.com slash Shapiro Plus when you order right in our show name in the How Did You Hear About Us survey to let them know we sent you. There is no safe like Simply Safe. We should have at least one simple rule when it comes to legal immigration. If you are here to sponge off the American taxpayer, get the hell out. Don't plan on working? Out. Bringing an entire family, the vast majority of whom will draw on the taxpayer dime? Nope. Well, this is what the Trump administration is now arguing. And New York Mayor Zoran Mamdani and the rest of the Democrats are screaming bloody murder. The question is, why? Why are Democrats so desperate to import people who are dependent on the American taxpayer? Why aren't Democrats concerned with the people who actually pay the taxes in the United States? We'll get into that question as well as the ugly answer. Plus, pardon brokering and skeezy wedding gifts, the Emmys, and a one-hit wonder trying to make bank on accusing Israel of genocide. This is The Ben Shapiro Show. So, when my great-great-grandparents got here from Lithuania and Russia more than 100 years ago, they came here with pretty much nothing. And they were entitled to pretty much nothing because that's the way that things work. This was true of virtually all immigrants to the United States for the first 160 years or so of our existence. They came here knowing that they probably weren't going to get anything. There were some mutual aid societies, maybe some friends and family who are already here who might be able to help them out. But the government was not going to be the primary means of support for these people and they knew it. They were coming here because they were coming for the opportunity. So, what did this mean in effect? Well, it meant high levels of assimilation. If you can't get paid without a job and if you can't get a job without assimilating, you actually have to assimilate. So, again, for my great-great-grandparents, they came here speaking Yiddish and within a generation, everybody was speaking English. It's very common among immigrants from the places that, again, my ancestors came from. They came here and they said to their kids, you are not allowed to speak Yiddish in the home. You actually have to speak English so you can learn English and then assimilate. Second, it meant a lot more involvement with social institutions. So, that meant more involvement if you were a Christian immigrant with your church because if you needed help, you went to your local religious institution for that help. And that was good because when you go to your local religious institution for help as opposed to going to the government, that comes along with strings like acting well. And when you're part of a community and you're drawing from the communal pool in terms of support, you owe things back to the community. It's not just a faceless check arriving in the mail. Third, it meant drawing a certain type of immigrant, the type of person who came here for the opportunity, who wanted to work, who was upwardly mobile. I mean, that was the basic bargain. The basic bargain was you come here to work. It's the difference between a store putting out a help wanted sign and a store putting out a free donut sign. It's going to draw two very different types of people. Help wanted brings the job applicants. Free donuts brings the people who want free donuts. While the free donuts were the welfare state. And then came the Immigration Naturalization Act alongside the Great Society programs of LBJ. Again, if you change the incentive structure, you're going to draw different people. That is how human incentives work. Daniel DeMartino of Manhattan Institute explains what is called the public charge rule. So one of the ways that we were supposed to combat this was a federal rule that said you don't get to come in the country and then become a public charge, meaning you are dependent on public welfare benefits. As he points out over at Manhattan Institute, one of the first federal immigration restrictions was the Immigration Act of 1882's ban on immigrants who were unable to take care of themselves without becoming a public charge. In the Immigration Act of 1889, Congress excluded paupers or persons likely to become a public charge. For nearly 150 years, longer than any modern federal welfare or entitlement program has existed, U.S. immigration law has included some form of public charge exclusion. Again, Congress recognized that given the fact the United States is very wealthy, a lot of people would come here and would be better off as paupers than they would staying in their native countries, which of course is very true today. The current form of the public charge rule is found in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and it provides that any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa or in the opinion of the attorney general at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible. So that seems pretty clear. The problem is, of course, that pretty much no one is getting deported on this basis. No one. The current standard, as Martino points out, used to determine if a prospective immigrant is likely to become a public charge, it's based on a 1999 interim field guidance issued during the Clinton administration. That standard is not particularly hard to meet. In 2017, about 1,000 immigrant visa petitions out of a million were rejected based on the public charge rule, which of course is insane. That's insane. I mean, the idea that you have over 1 million people who are coming here, many, many of whom will become public charges and only 1,000 get rejected on that grounds is nuts. So the question is why? What happened? Why wasn't the public charge rule really implemented? Well, again, we have to look at the history of how immigration worked in the United States. So as you say, in the beginning of the 20th century, you had vast migration to the United States, but pretty much no federal welfare programs. Then, in the 1930s, you had the New Deal programs, which were accessible to legal residents, but immigrant households were less likely to receive welfare than native-born households. And that was because we just didn't have that many immigrants. During the 1930s, we really restricted immigration. You can see the volume of U.S. immigration and continents of origin by decade from 1820 to 2013. Look at the gigantic drop-off from 1920 to 1930. And you can see the low levels of immigration that basically maintain up until you hit the post-war era. And then you see them again skyrocket in the aftermath of the INA. From the 1930s to the 1970s, which is post-Immigration and Naturalization Act, the Hart-Sellers Act, into the late 20th century, you see two things combined. One, vast, vast numbers of immigrants. And second, expansion under the Great Society programs and their successors of unconditional cash aid and expanded food stamps. By 1990, 21% of immigrant households were receiving cash, Medicaid, SNAP, or housing assistance versus 14% of native households, according to the National Bureau of Economics. So in 1996, under welfare reform, the United States passed what was called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Welfare reform, which is one of the great achievements of bipartisanship in the United States between the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton. One of the provisions was a five-year ban on green card holders receiving cash assistance or food assistance. Refugees and asylum seekers were exempted because, again, the reason they were getting in was the idea was that we had to let them in or they'd be killed elsewhere. That's why it was such a betrayal when Joe Biden decided that seeking asylum just meant you were poor. No, no, no, no, no, no. The whole idea was if you were trying to escape death, maybe we would let you in and maybe you'd even be a public charge, but you were trying to escape death. Okay, in any case, very, very quickly, there was a bipartisan consensus to undo all of this, mainly out of misplaced sympathy and empathy. Not empathy for the American taxpayer and the people who'd have to shoulder the burden, sympathy and empathy for the people who are coming here and wanted to then support themselves by taking money from the public trust. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 reversed some of the harshest cuts by restoring Supplemental Security Income, SSI, and derivative Medicaid benefits to the elderly and disabled immigrants who are already in the United States. Again, these are people with green cards. We're not talking about citizens. And then the Agricultural Research Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 restored SNAP eligibility to immigrant children, the elderly, and disabled individuals who had been lawfully residing in the U.S. prior to August 1996. So SNAP was put back in place. And then the 2002 Farm Bill under George W. Bush dramatically expanded access, completely eliminating the five-year waiting period for all lawfully present immigrant children, regardless of when they entered the country. So basically just undid welfare reform with regards to minors. It also restored adult SNAP benefits for legal immigrants who had resided in the U.S. for five years or who were receiving disability benefits. And even to counteract that federal five-year bar, states began stepping in with their own dollars during that period. More than three quarters of American states opted into federal provisions allowing them to use Medicaid funds to cover immigrant children, which of course made some sense because otherwise all these immigrant kids just end up in the ER. And then federal agencies jumped in. They started narrowly defining means-tested public benefits. So limiting that definition to just a few core programs like TAMF and SNAP and SSI and Medicaid allowed executive agencies to keep dozens of other discretionary lower-cost or public health programs like Head Start, Community Health Clinics, and WIC fully open to immigrants. So basically in the decades after welfare reform, immigrants use, these are legal immigrants we're talking about, use of non-cash benefits like Medicaid or SNAP would not label them a public charge, which meant they could continue to move towards citizenship and made them eligible for everything. Because once you aren't a citizen, then you're eligible for legitimately all welfare programs. So now where are we? Well, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, over half, over half, 53 to 54% of immigrant households today, use one major welfare program that is higher than the 37 to 39% of native-born households. Among non-citizen households, both illegal and legal, almost 60% are on one major welfare program. Immigrant households tend to use non-cash assistance like Medicaid and SNAP more than cash programs when compared to native-born households. So again, it is an insane proposition that we should just open our borders and also gigantically expand our welfare state for the people who are coming in. This is what Milton Friedman made. Milton Friedman, who is a libertarian when it came to border control, he said, it's one thing to have open immigration when you don't have a sack of cash on the other end. But the moment you put a sack of cash on the other end, obviously everyone is going to cross the border for the sack of cash. Now again, that puts aside all cultural concerns, even all assimilationist concerns. That is just a basic fact of logic, which is why if you go back far enough, Bernie Sanders, a socialist, used to be in favor of liberalism. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. He was a liberalist. Because even Bernie Sanders understood you bankrupt yourself. Then, of course, Bernie decided he had to cater to the woke brigade inside his own party, and he went in favor of open borders. But it's not as though we haven't seen this here. We've seen this story before. Europe is this story. One of the reasons that you have seen this vast spate of right-wing upsurge in Europe is not just because of lack of assimilation or no-go zones in widespread European countries ranging from Sweden to France to Germany. It is also because of the lack of assimilation. Also because of welfare dependency. Welfare dependency and crime, by the way, have a heavy overlap because, again, if you are coming to a country to take advantage of its welfare benefits and not integrate into the system, it turns out the same mentality that says that the government owes you something says society owes you something. And it's pretty easy to justify stealing from people as an aspect of this. There are some good problems in business. Too many customers, not enough inventory, needing another employee, outgrowing your space. Those are good problems. They are also expensive problems. Sometimes your growth actually outpaces your capacity to grow. You're moving too fast. And this is where Cardiff comes in. If you want bank rates without the bank delays, you need to check out cardiff.co slash Shapiro for up to $500,000 in same-day funding. Cardiff gives business owners access to up to $500,000 in funding. The application takes less than five minutes. There's no impact on your personal credit and eligible businesses can potentially be approved in minutes and funded the very same day. This isn't some new operation. Cardiff has funded more than 12 billion bucks for businesses since 2000. 2004. Entrepreneurs already take enough risks. You shouldn't have to risk missing the opportunity you've been working toward because financing can't keep up with your business. Banks try to lock out small businesses. Cardiff has the key. If you've been in business for at least a year and you're pulling in 20 grand a month in revenue, apply now for up to $500,000 in same-day business funding at cardiff.co slash Shapiro. Again, that's cardiff.co slash Shapiro. Real growth, fast funding. Cardiff, borrow better. So take, for example, Sweden. Sweden, of course, has an extraordinarily large welfare system. Sweden is largely socialized in terms of its distribution of benefits. Their native-born unemployment is 3% to 4%. Foreign-born unemployment in Sweden is between 12% and 20%, so at least three times higher, maybe as much as five times higher. Why? Because they decided to import, right? They opened their borders. They decided to import people who are taking advantage of their welfare benefits. And this is not rare. This is true across Europe. So why are Democrats in favor of this? Well, because Democrats love importing people who are then dependent on the sorts of government that Democrats seek. And these are people who are on the pathway to actual citizenship. They want to bring them here. They want them to become citizens, and then they want them to vote. That is the goal, because that fosters the kind of government they seek. Zoran Mamdani would love to import millions more people into Manhattan. Increasing demand without increasing supply. Have those people be dependent on the sorts of government that they seek. On public welfare benefits. And then vote for him, because if you can just vote yourself other people's money, you will continue to do so until the end of time. Now again, that doesn't mean that the children and grandchildren of some of these people might end up off of welfare. But if you create incentive structures, human beings take advantage of those incentive structures. So what does this mean? Well, the Trump administration announced that they were going to start strictly applying the public charge rule. That if you come here and then you're dependent on welfare benefits, out you go. The Democrats have gotten very upset about this. According to CBS News, New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani joined several mayors across the country in a joint lawsuit on Monday. The suit challenges the federal government's new public charge rule, which is set to take effect on Friday. The rule gives immigration agents leeway to deny green cards or visas to lawful immigrants on the basis of being a public charge, meaning someone using programs like Medicaid or food assistance. What we are seeing at the moment is people are fearful at the moment to enroll in any benefits, because it may put them at risk to be able to adjust immigration status for the future, said Arlene Cruz Escobar of Make the Road New York. Advocates said mixed status families may also be hesitant to use benefits they may legally qualify for. Well, yeah, I mean, that's the idea. You might legally, again, you can use the benefits. It just may put you at risk of deportation. No one's saying you can't apply for the benefits to which you are legally entitled. We're just saying that you aren't entitled to those benefits ad infinitum, in perpetuity, and then you just get to stay here. According to the city, if a new rule goes into effect, up to four million people nationwide could unenroll from health care plans, including 1.8 million children. And then they're suggesting, of course, this is going to kill the kids. So here is Zahra Mamdani suggesting that this is an undisguised effort to strip New Yorkers of the services they are entitled to. Again, I would just like to point out that entitlement programs are, generally speaking, a massive problem. They are the lead drivers of our national debt. They bankrupt cities. They bankrupt states. They bankrupt the country. The very idea that these programs are titled entitlements as opposed to what they actually are, which is the dole, is a way of changing the mentality people have toward drawing from the state. In the movie Cinderella Man, the main character, James J. Braddock, he has to go on welfare. This is in the 1930s. And there's a scene where he actually, after becoming rich again by boxing, brings money back to the welfare office and drops it off. No one in America would do that now because of the entire mentality shift about taking taxpayer dollars. Remember, taxpayer dollars, even ones that are created out of thin air by racking up the debt, those are somebody else's dollars. They do not belong to you. But because we keep saying entitlement over and over and over, the basic idea is that you're entitled to draw on the taxpayers. You're entitled to it. Now, again, even if you have that generalized perception, which I think is awful, I think it's awful. I don't care who you are in the United States. If you're taking advantage of the entitlement programs work. And honestly, I don't care who you are doing this. I don't care whether you are a person living in the inner city who is doing this, whether you're a Haredi doing this, whether you're like, I don't care. If you are avoiding the realities of working in America in order to make yourself dependent on the government, you're doing something morally wrong. It's even worse when we're importing vast numbers of people to do this. It's even worse when you're doing this. You should not be doing this. And certainly we should not be standing up entire programs and then opening our doors wide and saying you are entitled to this. But that is what Zor Mamdani wants.
Speaker 2If you are a citizen or an individual seeking humanitarian relief like asylum, these changes will not affect you. The new federal public charge rule not only sweeps aside more than a century of established law, it is intentionally vague as a means of creating uncertainty and fear to isolate immigrant New Yorkers, to force them to make an impossible choice between meeting their own basic needs and continuing to do what they want to do. And that's what Zor Mamdani wants. He wants to see the people of New York continue to live in the city that they love. Make no mistake, this is an undisguised effort to strip New Yorkers of the services they rely on, the public benefits they are entitled to. They are entitled to. It's stripping them.
Speaker 1It's just terrible. Okay, so I have a question. Why are you more worried about the people who are coming here and want to become citizens and are already on the dole than the people who are paying for them? We understand the answer to this. Zor Mamdani is an eat the rich guy. He would, there is nothing he can do about it. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He's not going to do anything. He wants better. And he just sees wealth from certain people and give it to people who vote for him to seize more wealth. That is the answer to this question. the entire thing. And of course we get the usual routine. People will die. Okay. The most stupid form of politics is people will die. It's the dumbest form of politics. Unless you can show an actual correlation between the policy change that is being made and the malicious death of people. This is the dumbest argument possible. Every public policy argument has risks and benefits. All of them going all the way to people could die is so stupid. It's not just stupid. It's malicious because the idea then is if I'm saying that we should not import vast numbers of people here to be dependent on the American taxpayer, because that is a, a seizure of American wealth on behalf of people who are foreigners, you should not do that. He is saying that you maliciously want those people to die. It's just gross. It's just gross politics. And it's untrue by the way.
Speaker 2The toll of this new rule cannot be overstated. It is estimated that up to 4 million people from across the country could unenroll from their health care alone, including 1.8 million children. None of this is abstract. People could die as a result of these changes. The rate of premature mortality in immigrant communities in New York city could increase by up to 10.6% within just the next five years. The data is clear. Denying people services does not erase their need. It compounds it generating a greater cost to our system that will be placed on the backs of working
Speaker 1people for years to come. So he's, it's going to be placed on the back of working people for years. I mean, you know, it's placed on the back of working people right now, literally right now, if you're paying taxes, he wants to put more of a burden on your back. And again, he's pulling these numbers directly out of thin air. This idea that if people don't have Medicaid because they are immigrants and therefore they shouldn't have Medicaid until they actually, become citizens and demonstrate that they aren't just going to be a public charge, that this is going to result in vast death. The data are not only not clear on that, they are non-existent on that. They're very, very unclear data on whether Medicaid itself even prolongs life. Because again, people still have emergency care. There are people who are finding care in other ways. That's an open debate. But regardless of that, this is what we would call an argument that proves too much because now he's basically just saying, why shouldn't people have endless benefits? Come here, have endless benefits. And if we don't give you the endless benefits, then that's a form of us killing you. Now, again, all of this is part and parcel of a broader worldview for people like Zoran Mamdani. It is not just about importing people who are dependent on the federal government and on the state government and local government. It is also about importing people who just hate the country. Because I can't imagine, can you imagine going to a country just to draw on the taxpayer? I can't imagine doing that, truthfully. It's a bizarre notion, but I can't imagine doing that. But it's not just that for people like Zoran Mamdani. They want to import people who fundamentally hate our country, which brings us to Mahmoud Khalil. If you are a pro-life person, if you're a person who wishes to provide women the support they need to make the correct decision, this is why you should help out the folks over at Preborn. Doctors told a woman named Alba that pregnancy was impossible. Her husband's diagnosis confirmed it. A child of their own simply wasn't going to happen. And then the impossible happened. Alba was pregnant. And that sounds like a miracle, but to Alba, it didn't feel like it. That positive pregnancy test felt like a mistake, a cruel twist of science she didn't understand or want. Nothing added up. She'd accepted that pregnancy wasn't possible. The baby wasn't planned. Suddenly, she was confused and afraid and overwhelmed. What should have felt like a miracle felt like a crisis. And then she walked into a Preborn network clinic. She was welcomed with compassion and given a free ultrasound. When she saw her baby and heard that tiny heartbeat, everything changed. Fear gave way to hope. Alba chose life. Today, baby Laura is healthy and thriving. Reminder, when God is writing the story, impossible doesn't get the final word. Right now, she needs that help. And you can give it to her. Just 28 bucks helps provide one life-saving ultrasound. 140 bucks helps rescue five babies. Please give today. Dial pound 250, say baby. That's pound 250, baby. Or visit preborn.com slash Ben. That's preborn.com slash Ben. If you're a business owner, would you consider a larger donation to claim a write-off? A donation of a grand, 2,000 bucks, 10 grand, 15 grand. That sponsors an ultrasound machine for a needy clinic, helping save countless babies' lives for years to come. Gifts are tax deductible, and will reach eternity. Get involved today. I'm not going to sit here and tell you I know what gold is going to cost six months from now, but I do start to pay attention when the largest financial institutions on planet Earth start putting numbers on paper. JP Morgan has told its clients that gold could reach 6,000 bucks an ounce by Q4. Citibank has predicted $90 silver. Both of these are still trading well below those targets. Again, you don't have to trust the prediction, but everybody is seeing inflation coming. Everybody is seeing a weak dollar. Everybody is seeing what's happening. And that's why I recommend Golden Crest Metals. They deal in widely recognized, highly liquid gold and silver, not overpriced collector coins. Current pricing, zero buyback fees. And when you call, you speak with an actual human. Right now, get a free 2026 info kit or a free portfolio review, plus up to $25,000 in free silver on qualifying purchases. Call 888-429-3999. Again, that's 888-429-3999. Text Ben to Metals at a 638-257 or head on over to goldencrestmetals.com slash Ben. Diversification is just a smart strategy in very, very choppy financial waters. Text Ben to Metals and get started or go to goldencrestmetals.com. So Mahmoud Khalil is the student leader who was imported to the United States on a student visa, essentially, in order to protest against the United States and say that we are backing a quote unquote genocidal state in Israel and that the United States is a superpower bent on murder and all the rest. He's one of the heads of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Mahmoud Khalil. He led the trespassing. And lawbreaking over at Columbia. He legitimately hates the country, but he's trying really, really hard to stay. He doesn't want to leave because he hates the country. Now, again, I would not immigrate to a country I hated and wanted to fundamentally change, but that's because I'm not an ideological weapon against the country. I mean, that's who Mahmoud Khalil is. I mean, just a reminder, Mahmoud Khalil is an immigrant to the country. He's trying to get in, who likes terrorism, but he's trying to get in, who likes terrorism, but he's trying to get in, who likes terrorism, Here he was in July 2025, refusing to condemn the terrorist group Hamas over and over and over
Speaker 3again. Just to be clear here, though, do you specifically condemn Hamas, a designated terrorist organization in the United States, not just for their actions on October 7th?
Speaker 4I condemn the killing of all civilians, full stop. And but what I don't want to get into is, is no, I am very clear that Hamas is a terrorist organization. I'm very clear with with condemning all civilians. I'm very, I'm very straight in my position and that and that part. But it's it's disingenuous to ask about condemning Hamas while Palestinians are the ones being starved now by Israel. It's not condemning October 6th, where 260 Palestinians
Speaker 1were killed. Again, that's who Mahmoud Khalil is. He hates the United States. He hates the West. So our new blockbuster movie, Run, Hide, Fight Infidels, which comes out tomorrow, is at least in part inspired by Khalil and the out of control protesters at Columbia, the blue hairs who decided to join him. Well, in the movie, Jonathan Major's character, playing a military veteran who has fought radical Muslims abroad, shows up on campus in the middle of these protests, which are then used by a terrorist group as a front to invade the campus. And he explains what a threat Islamic immigration poses. Here's Jonathan Major's character in our brand new movie, Run, Hide, Fight Infidels, saying the thing that Hollywood won't say.
Speaker 5There are three ways Islam will conquer the West. Through immigration, through the wombs of our women, and by using our own Western freedoms against us.
Speaker 1Okay, so it's that last one I want to focus on, because this is right, using our own Western freedoms against us. Mahmoud Khalil doesn't believe in any of these Western freedoms. He does not. He does not believe on a fundamental level in freedom of speech, which is why he defends Hamas, a terrorist group that murders dissenters. He does not believe in freedom of religion. He does not believe in freedom of speech. He does not believe in freedom of separation of church and state. He doesn't really believe in private property. But people like Mahmoud Khalil are more than happy to come to the West and then use our freedoms against us. That is a reality. That is not fiction. That's fact. The freedoms that we hold to be dear and sacred to us, the ones that are enshrined in our constitution, do not exist in the Islamic world. They just do not. As I said in a video over the weekend, you can find it on YouTube talking about Islam and its conciliation with the West. The reality is Islamic values as practiced as a political doctrine, because Islam is an entire worldview and encompasses politics. It encompasses how countries are ruled, does not jibe with Western values. It does not. But people like Mahmoud Khalil, radical terror supporters, are happy to come to the West and use those freedoms against us, which is why Mahmoud Khalil is now again suing Columbia University. So Columbia lets him in, imports him to our country. Again, why the hell this person was in our country in the first place is insane, totally insane. And then he starts shouting and screaming about how his freedom of speech is being abused if he gets deported. And not only that, he's now suing Columbia University in federal court for showing what he says was deliberate indifference to the harassment of pro-Palestinian students like him. So again, this is a person who led a protest movement that literally took over campus buildings and blocked access to other students. And he's the victim. Always. As per our usual arrangement in which Muslim terrorists start wars they can't win, then lose and whine about it. That's what Mahmoud Khalil did here. He alleges that Columbia failed to respond to the persistent and severe harassment students encountered because of their advocacy, despite repeatedly asking Columbia administrators for help in the days and weeks preceding his March 2025 arrest by ICE agents. So Khalil blames Columbia for being arrested. They let him in, and then he turns around and uses phrases like free speech and due process to attack the people who let him in in the first place. That's the whole thing. Yes, there are, in fact, malicious actors who will use our freedoms and yes, the bennies that come along with it against us. Mahmoud Khalil is one of these. Here he was yesterday.
Speaker 6Today, I'm filing a lawsuit against Columbia University and SIPA Dean Karen Yari Milo for their gross and systematic discrimination against Palestinian students at Columbia. I'm joined by my friends at the Palestine Working Group. Columbia laid the groundwork for my targeting by the Trump administration through its deliberate indifference and discrimination aimed at intimidating Palestinian students.
Speaker 1OK, why is this person in our country? Deport, deport, deport. Secretary of State Rubio said about Mahmoud Khalil, this isn't about free speech is back in March 2025 when they originally tried to deport him.
Speaker 7If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, and by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, anti-Semitic activities, I intend to shut down your universities, if you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that, once you're in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it. And if you end up having a green card, not citizenship, but a green card as a result of that visa while you're here and those activities that you're doing, we will revoke it. And if you end up having a green card, not citizenship, but a green card as a result of that visa while you're here and those activities that you're doing, we will revoke it. of that visa while you're here in those activities, we're going to kick you out. It's as simple as that. This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has
Speaker 1a right to a green card, by the way. Okay, he is right about all of that. But again, the idea from people like Mahmoud Khalil and Zoran Mamdani and the entire Democratic Party is you do have a right. You have a right to come here hating the country. You have a right to come here hating the country and being on welfare benefits, which is why Zoran Mamdani literally had Mahmoud Khalil and his wife at Gracie Mansion. This is who Zoran Mamdani is. When we say in Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels, when Jonathan Major's character says in Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels, again, out tomorrow, you should go subscribe so you can see it the minute it drops. It's a hot movie. It also happens to be fun to watch. It's awesome. It's a great action flick, but it also says the things Hollywood will never say. When Jonathan Major says that Islamic radicals will use the freedoms of the West against the West, that is no lie. That is just a reality. And that way you import millions of people from countries that despise the West. Many of those people still despise the West, even when they come here and then live under its rubric while claiming that they love the freedoms because they are using the freedoms. That is just a reality. Because again, we know what America would look like. If folks like Mahmoud Khalil were in the majority, it would look just like the other Islamic countries on planet Earth, which is to say none of those freedoms would exist. Now, back to immigration for a second. The reality is that since we have imported an enormous number of people who both hate the country and draw on its resources, that's coming along with a ton of fraud. Because again, if you believe that you're not fundamentally loyal to America, why precisely would you have a problem stealing from the American taxpayer? So yesterday, Vice President Vance did a presser in Kansas City, Missouri, talking about his fraud investigations. He says that he's dedicated to cracking down on the defrauding of the American taxpayer.
Speaker 8We've taken close to 90 prosecutorial decisions that are making clear and sending a message to the fraudsters that if you defraud the American people, if you steal money from the American taxpayer that should go to American workers, we're actually going to prosecute you and we're going to try to send you to prison. I think the American people have every right to do that. I think the American people have every right to expect that when they write to the check to the IRS, when they write a check to the federal government, that money is going to go where the law says that it should go and not defraudsters. So of course, that should be true, but it is not
Speaker 1true. There are many, many people who are defrauding the American taxpayer. This includes people who borrowed from the federal government under the Small Business Administration. He says there have been almost a million people been flagged for fraud with regards to the SBA, which again, this is a great argument for why the SBA should not exist. The reality is that when you make the federal there, there are a couple of different ways of fighting fraud and defrauding the federal government. In fact, there are many different ways. One of them would be restrict immigration for people who want to be on welfare benefits. The other thing that you could do is not turn the government into a giant bag of pork. You could do that. It turns out that nobody tries to rob the bank where there is no money. We're not going to do that. In any case, here is J.D. Vance talking about SBA borrowers who have been flagged for
Speaker 8fraud. We're actually sending out letters. We're sending out letters in order to notify people that they're suspected of fraud. So we encourage people to respond to those letters because obviously we don't want to make mistakes. We don't want people to find out that they've been tagged as a fraudster inaccurately. But we're being very careful, very diligent. We're sending out some of these letters ahead of time so that we ensure that we're being accurate about this.
Speaker 1Yes, obviously we should be doing that. And then he makes a great point, the vice president. He says, listen, if you don't know that the money you send to the government is actually protected, why do you pay taxes at all? OK, so this is a great question, but it applies more broadly than to just the SBA or to the amounts of, quote unquote, waste, fraud and abuse. Because it turns out that these programs are built as defrauding mechanisms of the American public in all too many circumstances. Disability, for example, in the United States, the number, the percentage of Americans who are claiming disability right now is higher than it has ever. Do you think there are more disabled Americans as a percentage than there have ever been in American life? Is that what you mean? Because that's wrong. People are claiming disability in order to avoid work. Again, this is what happens when you turn the government into a gigantic welfare redistribution mechanism. Here is J.D. Vance.
Speaker 8If you're a taxpayer and you write a check to the government and you have no confidence, you're a taxpayer and you see that withholding every single two week pay period that, you know, X dollars goes to Medicaid and goes to Medicare and goes to Social Security and goes to everything else. If you don't have confidence that the federal government is going to protect your money, why do you pay taxes at all?
Speaker 1Hey, so he is right about that. Well, here's the thing. Unfortunately, when you train entire generations of Americans, that the country is basically a giant grab bag of cash paid for by others to be drawn from, they are owed it. People start to think that way. That's not just true of immigrants. It is also true of non-immigrants, which is for sure the case with a lot of this fraud. But a great example of this is Angie Nixon. So Angie Nixon is the Florida Democratic Senate candidate and a valid Democratic socialist who owns two homes and raked in at least two and a half dollars a year. Two hundred seventy thousand dollars from her jobs and investments last year, in addition to her husband's unpublished income. Well, now she's whining about having to pay taxes on that income. And her personal income in twenty twenty five clocked in at well over five times the median income of the average American worker. But she failed to set enough of her substantial earnings aside to pay both taxes and her student loans. So she says she's not going to repay her unpaid federal student loan debt. In twenty twenty three, when Congress ended the pandemic era student loan moratorium. Nixon declared on Facebook she was above paying back her educational debts. Quote, Dear student loans. It's above me now. I don't want to pay it back. Education supposed to be free. And when you think that it's everybody else's job to pay your bills, it turns out that you are willing to do all sorts of corrupt things because, after all, why not? Here is Angie Nixon saying that we should tax all the billionaires, but she's on a payment plan to pay back taxes.
Speaker 9Like, why are we? Subsidizing the lifestyles of these billionaires like they can afford to pay their fair share. There were 88 companies last year, corporations that made one hundred and five billion dollars. They pay zero in federal taxes. Zero. Meanwhile, your girl over here is on a payment plan, Melissa, to pay the IRS twelve thousand dollars back.
Speaker 1This is so she has a payment plan to pay back the IRS. She so many Americans believe that they are just owed. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. And so she's going to pay back the IRS twelve thousand dollars back. who he was dating at one point, played by Diane Keaton. And he's walking with her on the street, and he's trying to make an excuse for why it's okay to be a mafioso. And she says to him, senators don't have people killed. And he says, oh, you're so naive. Now, in reality, U.S. senators are a class, generally speaking, of bumbling idiots. The idea that U.S. senators have people killed is absurd. It's really, really stupid. But in the script, that is a permission structure for him to kill all of his enemies. This is always true. If you want a permission structure to do a bad thing, say that the whole system is corrupt and bad, and then you feel justified in doing the bad thing. By the way, kids do this. This is what children do. If you catch your child doing a bad thing, they'll very often say, well, Bobby did it. Okay, so this is why the elite class in the United States has an obligation, people in positions of power, in positions of wealth, they have an obligation not to give even the whiff of corruption. Because if it looks, like the people at the top are cheating, that is a permission structure for everyone to cheat. It's bad on their own that they look like they're cheating. But again, if you look as though you are engaged in corruption at the top levels, all you're doing is reinforcing the idea the entire system is corrupt. And that ends, in the end, with a government-run system. That is where that goes. It is an incentive toward government control and nationalization. Because if you can't be trusted not to cheat, well, then we'll put it in the hands of the government. That is the natural reaction. Now, I don't care whether you're Joe Biden's kid or Donald Trump's kid. Avoiding the appearance of corruption is a good and necessary thing. And this brings us to one of the big media stories of the day out of ProPublica. Umar Kremlev, a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin, footed the bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars wedding expenses for Don Jr., according to records reviewed by ProPublica in interviews with three people familiar with the event. Some longtime friends of Don Trump Jr. told associates they were disappointed not to be invited, though a few of his closest business partners, partners, executives at the Trump Family Crypto Company, World Liberty Financial, and the venture capital firm 1789, did make the cut. President Trump himself skipped it. Now, again, Donald Trump Jr. has his own sort of constituency inside and outside the White House. He's very close to some people inside the administration, obviously. Bettina Anton Jr. clarified in an Instagram post what happened here. Again, the allegation is that a Russian oligarch who barely speaks English, and is very, very close to Vladimir Putin, dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars to basically throw a big party for Don Jr. and his new bride, Bettina. So on Instagram, they said, quote, Apparently, our wedding is making headlines again, so a little clarity seems in order. Don and I got married privately on Friday, surrounded only by our family. It was intimate, deeply personal, and one of the most beautiful days of our lives. The weekend that followed had actually been planned well in advance as a fun weekend with friends. It was never intended to be our wedding weekend. When our original wedding plans changed, we simply decided to get married before it and arrived at an already planned weekend as newlyweds. Our dear friend, Umar, very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us after our wedding. It was an extraordinarily generous wedding gift from a friend and something for which we wore and remain incredibly grateful. It's unfortunate that something so personal and happy can be recast as something political or sinister simply because of who someone is or where they come from. Friendship doesn't require a political motive. Okay. I have a lot of good friends. I'm not sure how many of those good friends are going to drop, you know, $400,000, $500,000 for an elaborate post-wedding party, and also, I will admit, I do not have a lot of good friends with whom I cannot converse because they don't speak my language, right? Umar apparently speaks mostly Russian and also, again, happens to be very, very close with Vladimir Putin. So again, suspicion of corruption here is not totally unavailing. It's not unwarranted. If you change that, here's my rule. If you change the name, Donald Trump Jr. to Hunter Biden, would Republicans be screaming bloody murder about it? If the answer is yes, it is a bad thing. It is a not good thing. Now, again, none of this means that President Trump is the pro in any quid pro quo, like Don Jr. is receiving a wedding gift and therefore President Trump does something. But Don Jr., with this sort of stuff, does his dad a disservice, just as it is a major disservice to his father's administration and to the Republican Party generally and to the country for World Liberty Financial, the crypto firm and its shaky assets, to be taking in hundreds of millions of dollars for what appears to be vaporware. It's not a service to the administration or to the American people when 1789 Capital, which is a firm in which he is invested, is getting government contracts with companies in which it is invested or tungsten mining in Kazakhstan or rare earths companies in Brazil. Again, maybe there's law breaking here. Maybe there's corruption here, but it doesn't actually take that in order to give the appearance of corruption. And it's not good for the administration. It is not good for the Republican Party. And I promise you, you're going to get two long years of investigations into all of this. You will know the names of everybody at World Liberty Financial and 1789 Capital and all the minerals companies in Kazakhstan by the time this is over. Whether you are Hunter Biden picking up sacks of cash in Ukraine or whether you are Donald Trump Jr. going to the Middle East and picking up sacks of cash from World Liberty Financial, the appearance of impropriety is bad. Was that good for Joe Biden? Again, because what I care about here is what's good for the American people. This is not to say that people can't engage in normal business pursuits. Obviously they can. But if you are using insider information, if you are using the name of the President of the United States in order to rug pull people on a crypto coin, for example, that is a bad thing that is going to blow back on the administration, blow back on the policies many of us care about, blow back on the Republican Party more generally. And again, what this ends up with, when there's the appearance of corruption, what you end up with is a bunch of mollusks on the whale. So one of those mollusks is apparently a person named Jacob Wohl. So there's a 60 Minutes report about pardon brokers named Jack Berkman and Jacob Wohl. Now, Wohl has a pretty long and inglorious history of alleged scamming. 60 Minutes reported that basically these two were charging people to broker pardons on behalf of the Trump administration. And the Trump administration is like, we don't even know who these people are, right? We haven't met these people. But why do you think people are paying these people a lot of money? It's because people do believe that if they pay people, those people will get them pardons. That's the reason you pay. If this administration or the last administration or any administration were above reproach, nobody would be paying skeezy losers hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to obtain pardons, obviously. Here's some of the 60 Minutes report in which Jacob Wohl explains that being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to apparently not obtain pardons is not corrupt.
Speaker 2There's nothing corrupt about it. There's nothing improper about it.
Speaker 10It seems that you have to have money to get a pardon these days.
Speaker 8We don't work for free any more than you do, right? You're well paid for what you do. We're well paid for what I do. Navigating Washington,
Speaker 1as you well know, is not an easy thing. Now, again, I think that the pardon power probably ought to be obliterated at this point. It was a constitutional holdover from essentially the monarchic power branch of the British government. With that said, again, the reason people are paying this money is because they're being told that these brokers can get them a pardon, which, again, not great. There's more than 60 Minutes report.
Speaker 10So, when you went the regular route, how much did it cost you? A postage stamp. Postage stamp. That's it. And this would cost you? $300,000. What did you say?
Speaker 11What's it for? And they said, well, we have to buy tickets.
Speaker 12We have to go to Mar-a-Lago. We have to attend events that the president's at. We have to possibly buy a $10,000 ticket to a fundraiser that the president is attending.
Speaker 11They said we have to hire contractors to do certain things. Well, influencers that know other people that can put us in the vicinity of the people that can make a difference.
Speaker 1Again, why does it appear that way? Well, because, again, there have been a lot of people who are sort of in Trump's orbit who put a lot of money into his businesses and then got some special benefits. The appearance of corruption underscores the idea the system is corrupt. That underscores fraud. It underscores government control of systems. It undermines free markets. It undermines the good working order of government. All of that is bad. Okay. Meanwhile, the other dumb cultural controversy of the day. Ed Sheeran, for a reason no one can discern, decided that Macklemore would open for him. Now, Macklemore has not been relevant for, I don't know, 10 years. He was a one-hit wonder. He did a song called Thrift Shop. And then he's basically been wandering the fields of obscurity ever since. Well, a great way to sort of break out of the fields of obscurity is to say radical things at a concert these days. Because nobody would even know that Macklemore opened for Ed Sheeran because who goes to an Ed Sheeran concert to watch Macklemore? The only reason that he became sort of a national class celeb again is because he went on stage and decided to show up and shout about how Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza. Because this has become the litmus test for political wokeness. The old political wokeness was America is a white supremacist country. The new political wokeness is Israel is a genocidal state in the Middle East. Both of those are false. But again, that doesn't matter. So the result of that is that Robert Kraft, who owned the stadiums in which Ed Sheeran was doing his concerts, said, we are not going to be doing this. Like, you can perform wherever you want, but you can't do it I can't perform in a stadium that I own telling overt and stupid lies, particularly from a person like McLemore, who, of course, has dressed up in, like, full-scaled or Sturmer Jewish garb at concerts before. He put out a statement, quote, Gillette Stadium has a long-standing commitment to provide a welcoming environment for all guests and ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech. Based on McLemore's recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran's show in New Jersey, and a broader history of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community, we determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26th concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line. This decision is not about diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians or denying anyone the right to advocate on their behalf. Their pain and loss are real, but that advocacy should not come at the expense of the Jewish community or obscure the responsibility of Hamas, a United States and globally designated terrorist organization whose horrific actions have caused immeasurable suffering for Palestinians and Israelis alike. I agree with McLemore. Too many lives have been lost and there's been too much suffering, but only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest, and only it is a mistake. The dude could not spot Israel on a map if spotted Jordan and Lebanon. But now he's going to turn himself into a hero. So the backlash has begun. He put out a statement, McLemore, because Ed Sheeran then said, OK, fine, well, I'm just don't come to the concerts anymore. Like, love you, dude, but you're not coming to the concerts. He said, Ed is my friend. I've known him for 13 years. I consider him a brother. And because of that, we've had some difficult conversations this past week. The types of talks rooted in love and respect for one another that still end in a place of fundamental disagreement. Nothing I'm writing here is out of spite or because I want to tear down his character. But as I told Ed multiple times on the phone, I'm not going to tear down his character. I'm going to tear down his character. Our friendship can't change my responsibility to tell the truth about what happened. He said Ed was in an effed up position. He told me the words free Palestine and the images of the Palestinian flag were hurtful to a lot of people he spoke with. I told him if those words were more offensive than tens of thousands of Palestinian children being killed by Israel, there was a fundamental disconnect. He couldn't get past his public facing. I don't take sides. And I get why people don't. Taking a side can cost you. OK, let us be real in the entertainment industry. What costs you in the entertainment industry? Being pro-Israel. That is what costs you in the entertainment industry these days. The number of actors in Hollywood who have been put out of jobs because they are pro-Israel is incredible. If you're in the entertainment industry and you show up at the Emmys with an Israel pin, things are not going to go well for you. But if you show up with a Palestine pin, you will be cheered. This is why at Venice Film Festival, a documentary filled with nonsense, like lies and nonsense. But a 24 minute standing ovation accusing Israel of deliberately murdering hundreds of Palestinian civilians just for fun. The notion that our cultural arbiters are somehow anti the left's love for Hamas and the pro-Palestinian movement is psychotic. But it's great for Macklemore because now he gets to pretend he's relevant again. He pinned his crappy song F'd Up, which glorifies revolution and rioting. It's trash. I mean, it's a really, really bad song. As per usual, here is some of his crappy song. You can hear why this dude has not been relevant for a decade.
Speaker 13Stand for something to fall for anything. I'm sick. But it's game time. The world's on fire. We don't own the water, y'all. It may tire for a couple. That was the first number of Hanna.
Speaker 1Oh, Ed Sheeran. Just on a musical level, why would you do this? Oh, my God. And then, of course, look at that. I mean, literally, like the American dollar and the Israeli flag and the same thing. It's just. Don't worry. Don't worry. It's not anti-Semitic memes at all. It's just. Come on. Well, Miss Rachel, who, again, has used her perch as a YouTube children's slaw post to prop up terrorist sympathizers, by the way. I mean, here she was literally alongside a terrorist sympathizer and Yachia Sinwar fan named Motaz Azeza, right, and who spent all of 10-7 literally saying nothing, like nothing, and then has repeated every single anti-Israel meme she can find. Well, she's out there defending Macklemore, of course. She says, "I see you have a hierarchy of children's lives." There are two kinds of celebrities and leaders right now, those who are willing to shout at the top of their lungs that over 20,000 Palestinian children shouldn't have been killed in the Gaza genocide and those that remain silent because these children are not worth it to them. Well, actually, no, there are a lot of people who point out that every child that died is a result of Hamas attacking Israel. Second, that Israel did not commit a genocide because that is not what genocides look like. Genocides look like the mass extermination of a population. They do not look like a genocide. They do not look like the targeted killing of terrorists with the single best civilian-to-terrorist kill ratio. There's no such thing as a great ratio because any time a civilian dies, it's terrible. But if you're just talking about the efficacy of military action, there's never been a lower ratio in urban combat between terrorist death and civilian death than you saw in the Gaza Strip. It doesn't matter. Again, it's all slop. It's all slop. Slop pushed by people like Pramila Jayapal in Congress. It's so incredibly disappointing. Yeah. And Macklemore, my constituent, was removed from Ed Sheeran's tour because of his commitments in support of the Palestinian people. We should all be outraged that powerful people are more upset about what an artist says than the displacement, starvation, and killing of innocent Palestinians. Well, no, they were concerned about his lies. The fact that he is a liar. That was the reason. Well, at least he'll be able to perform in Dearborn. Shocker. The Dearborn mayor, Abdullah Hamoud, who once, again, Abdullah Hamoud is the same mayor who once told a concerned constituent that he should be able to perform in Dearborn. He should leave Dearborn rather than object to the renaming of a city street after a terrorist. But he's going to welcome Macklemore. Good news, I suppose. I mean, listen, no one's talked about Macklemore this much since thrift shops. So good for him, I suppose. He's making a buck. And meanwhile, speaking of people making a buck with significant political beliefs, the Emmys took place last night. Again, there wasn't a lot happening at the. Emmys, really, there are a few people who made some political statements. So, for example, Stephen Colbert won Best Variety Show, which was a charity giveaway to him since his show ended. And then he made a speech telling people that he wanted his crew to be hired. But look, he won an Emmy. That's so special.
Speaker 14The thing about these late shows is that besides being a really good, steady job, is that they require so many people that they're a fantastic incubator for young people. To come in, to learn to work professionally on a deadline, in cooperation, in collaboration. And that is the future of our business that we have to look after. I want you to know I got some great news. They are all tech avail. Hire them. They will make your show better and they will make your day easier.
Speaker 1Great. Good for good for Stephen Colbert. I mean, at least he got to feel good about it. I suppose John Oliver had said that he wanted Colbert and Kimmel to win because, again, solidarity among overrated late night hosts.
Speaker 15Who are you rooting for tonight, John? I would really love Colbert and Kimmel to win tonight. Kimmel's had a very, very difficult year in many different ways and has done an incredible job navigating it. So I would love Jimmy Kimmel to win tonight. Stephen, obviously, would be great to see. So in our in our category, that's what I would love to see.
Speaker 1I'm sure that he would. I'm sure he would. But again, there wasn't a lot happening. Some of the people there were very upset about the merger between Paramount and Warner Brothers. Sally Field is one of those people.
Speaker 16We're the arts. We matter. Our voices matter. Our diversity, our unique storytelling matters. We can't let those voices be silenced or compromised or merged. Thank you for this. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1Well, again, these people who made millions of dollars, very upset about a merger that will actually put more money into this. Their industry kind of astonishing. Again, not much happening last night over at the Emmys. But J.D. Vance did have some words about Emily in Paris. I have I have no words for this. Here is J.D. Vance.
Speaker 8I just had a buddy of mine criticize the masterwork of American television called Emily in Paris. And so let me give you my meta analysis of Emily in Paris and why it's genius. The basic idea, if you if you're just watching it superficially, is Emily in Paris is about this sort of bubbly girl who goes. To Paris and has a cool job and has great experiences and drinks fine wine and does all the things that you would do in Paris. But what it's actually is it is a massive cultural criticism of millennial decision making. She goes to Paris and it's obvious to everybody watching the show that she should end up with the French chef. She should marry this guy. They should start a family, whether in Paris or America. They should build a life together. That's that's what they should be doing. And by the same token. On that token, the French chef obviously end up with her not the various craziest people to bump in and out of his life and yet what both of them do is they make a series of absurd sometimes hilarious sometimes not particularly believable mistakes where she ends up with a bunch of random people or focused on her job he ends up with a bunch of random people or focused on his job and it's like obvious fall in love get married you two were made for each other and the fact that they keep on making atrocious decisions is kind of like the best bit of cultural commentary i would say cultural criticism of my generation the millennials you gotta watch emily in paris it is at the risk of
Speaker 1overstating it the shakespeare of our time well that was a risk of overstating it mr vice president just watch some reruns of breaking bad my dude seriously there's so much better i can't i can't all right coming up you think the show is over wrong you are the hot controversy over ai continues you need to be a member to hear my take on that however it's an op okay this is an op i will explain why it's an op the minute steve bannon's name is mentioned you know it's we'll get to that in a second first become a member use code shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans click the link in the description and join us by the way you should become a member now because tomorrow if you wish to see the premiere of run hide fight infidels you must be a member so like just do it now get it out of the way and then tomorrow you'll be clicking on our site and you'll be watching an awesome action film that says the things nobody else will say our biggest release ever it's awesome you're gonna love it it's great but you have to be a member for all of that
Speaker 3every significant movement in history has started with protesting this is our generation's
Speaker 8civil rights i have no idea what the protest is about bingo given the current climate should a figure as polarizing as place saunders even be allowed on campus uh can you hear me okay
Speaker 5saunders is a close personal friend of chancellor friedman this is a decision i cannot fight islam will conquer the west
Speaker 3are we paying attention they've taken over the building they're downstairs and they've
Speaker 17blocked the doors i seek forgiveness from allah the almighty we cannot run and hide muhammad is the messenger of god there is no god but allah what do you say
Speaker 18we turn those sobs into a fine red mist as we move one man will cover while the other guys go
Speaker 5they call that leap project stretch your mouth and listen you need a course in safe weapons handling you Thanks for watching!
PodcastTranscript AI