Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
After the media spend four years warning of incipient dictatorship, President Biden decides to govern by executive fiat. Confusion still reigns on Biden's covid policy. And forty five Senate Republicans vote essentially to dismiss impeachment. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Today's show is sponsored by Expressive Don't let Big Tech track what you do, anonymize your web browsing and express VPN dotcom. Then we're going get to everything in the news in just one moment. First, you should be attempting to save money this year. I mean, should every year. But now would be a really good time to save money considering the state of the economy. So take a look at your bill. And what you will see is that you're spending an awful lot of money on your cell phone, like a lot of money on your cell coverage.
You don't need to. Instead, why not switch over to pure talk USA from AT&T, Verizon or T-Mobile? When you do, you could save over 800 dollars a year. That's real money every single month right back in your pocket. You don't have to sacrifice coverage. Pure talk is on the same network as one of the big carriers, but they charge you half. That's right. No gimmicks, no fluff added to the bills. That is why Pure Talk is the top rated wireless company by consumer affairs.
And how about this offer? Right now you can get unlimited talk, text and six gigs of data for just 30 bucks a month. If you go over on data usage, they're not going to charge you for it. Grab your mobile phone, DAOU pound 250. Say, Ben Shapiro, when you do, you said 50 percent off your first month. Why would you be spending a lot more money for cell phone coverage? That is like exactly the same as the cell phone coverage you could get from here to USA for maybe half the cost.
Dial LB two five zero Saiki where Ben Shapiro Pure Talk USA Simply Smarter Wireless again. Dow Pound to fifty. Say, Ben Shapiro, when you do you say 50 percent off your first month and then down the road. All right. So Joe Biden, he is supposed to be a moderate, right? I mean, this is what we've been told.
He's a moderate. He is normal and moderate and moderate normal. And here's the thing about Joe Biden. He constantly says things about the Constitution that are kind of true, and then he just proceeded to ignore them. So I want to flash you back to the middle of the campaign. And Joe Biden is being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, Democratic operative and ABC News anchor. And George Stephanopoulos is asking him why exactly he can't just do things. Why don't you just do things, you know, if you become president, why you do things?
And Joe Biden says, you know, you're going to have to use the legislature because there's this thing called the legislature. It's in the Constitution. And the president cannot just govern by executive fiat. If he does, this makes me a dictator. You know, this is not me saying this happens to be true. It's not me saying this. It is Joe Biden saying this year, Joe Biden circa just a couple of months ago, talking about how presidents are not supposed to govern by executive fiat.
The one thing that I have this strange notion, we are a democracy, some of my Republican friends and some of my Democratic friends even occasionally say, well, if you can't get the votes by executive order, you're going to do something, things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator. We're a democracy. We need consensus.
Oh, we need consensus. Do we? And also, you can't just do things by executive order. Is it also that there'd be a dictatorship if there was just one guy who could just use executive orders and put his whims into law that way? Wouldn't that be kind of dictatorial? It seems. OK, now flashback to the present. Joe Biden is now the president of the United States. According to hang back a daily wire through Monday, January 25th, the sixth day of his tenure in office, Joe Biden had issued 28 executive orders, dwarfing the initial number of executive orders issued by former presidents in the initial days and their tenure.
Former President Trump signed four executive orders in the first week of his tenure, with a total of 220 executive orders signed in his total time as president from President. Barack Obama signed five in the first week. Two hundred seventy six overall, former President George W. Bush signed zero in his first week. Former President Bill Clinton signed one in his first week. President Joe Biden has signed twenty eight in the first six days. Apparently he signed a few more yesterday.
That means he is up to 33. He is up to thirty three executive orders and these executive orders are policy making. Instruments at these actually have a real impact on policy. Now, what were executive orders originally meant to do? Not this generally an executive order. And I've been very much a.. Executive orders since as long as I can remember, because this is not how the Constitution was supposed to operate. In fact, if you look in the Constitution, you'll notice there is no verbiage with regard to executive orders.
There is no phrase executive orders. In fact, there's no phrase presidential proclamations. A lot of the stuff that presidents use these days is not actually in the Constitution. So what exactly are executive orders, what they've been used since the beginning of the republic, essentially to allow the executive branch to effectuate the will of the legislature? The idea was the legislature tells the executive branch to do something and now the executive branch has to do it. But the legislature has not been specific enough in how they want the executive branch to do it.
And so now the executive branch has to effectuate that. Right. It's as though my wife tells me that she wants me to clean the dishes. I'm going to fill in the blanks, OK? I need to use a sponge. I need to use the soap. Right. That would be the executive order. My wife's mandate to clean the dishes is the legislature. And I'm the executive who is now in charge of cleaning the dishes. There are a bunch of things I have to do in order to make that happen.
And that is how the delegation is supposed to work. The legislature delegates power to the executive and the executive uses the power that has been delegated. Unfortunately, that is not what has happened, and it's not rare for presidents to overrun their executive authority. The difference is that now nobody seems to care. It really is quite incredible. Essentially, what we have in this country is a is a Congress that sometimes passes giant omnibus packages that spend a lot of money and delegates, tremendous authority to the executive branch, which is staffed by two million people, hundreds of thousands in various under the auspices of various regulatory agencies.
They churn out tens of thousands of pages of regulations that are highly specific and govern your everyday life. More of what happens in your everyday life is governed by the workings of the regulatory agencies inside the executive branch that is governed by Congress itself. A Congress is just there to pass defense bills and sometimes cut your taxes or raise your taxes or to pass these omnibus spending packages. That's pretty much it. That's all they do. They are vestigial organ of government, that they exist almost the way that the parliament used to exist in Great Britain with regard to the king, that they were just there to basically fund whatever the king wanted to do and the king would go to parliament.
And if he didn't get what he wanted from Parliament, then he would then he would dissolve parliament and call a new parliament, and then parliament would give him the money that he wanted. That's essentially what we do now. The only difference is that we elect our dictator every four years, every four years, we get to decide who is going to issue the executive orders. And limitations on executive orders have been really falling apart for one hundred years, essentially, FDR issued tons and tons of executive orders that really outstripped the power of the office.
The Supreme Court case that typically is used to discuss exactly what executive orders are allowed to do is a case that is called Youngstown Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company vs. Sawyer. OK, this is a case that cropped up during the Truman administration, basically the middle of the Korean War. And there was a labor union at a steel mill and labor union decided to strike at the steel mill. And Truman, because we're in the middle of a war and we needed steel, instead of trying to use the Taft Hartley act to break the union, instead of using the Taft Hartley Act to join the strike for 60 days, instead, Truman decided essentially to steel to seize the steel mill, he said.
He said, I have the executive authority. You just take away private property for war production. Well, the Supreme Court said, well, actually, you can't do that by executive order, that is not something you can do by executive fiat. There's a justice named Robert Jackson. And Justice Jackson then proceeded to write a concurrence and he spelled out exactly what executive orders are for. And here's what he said. He said, presidential powers are not fixed, but fluctuate depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.
And then he created what he called an oversimplified grouping of practical situations in which a president may doubt or others may challenge his powers. So, one, when the president acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right, plus all the Congress can delegate. That is what I'm talking about, is sort of the original origin of an executive order Congress says, I want you to do.
The president then has to do a bunch of things in order to effectuate X, right. That's a normal executive order. Then there's Category two and here is where presidents have begun to expand their power and they've never stopped expanding their power to when the president acts in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can rely only upon his own independent powers. But there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority or in which distribution is uncertain.
Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or acquiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite measures on independent presidential responsibility in this area. Any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events. So basically what you've seen as presidents have to president declare that Congress has not acted in this area, nor will they act. We have gridlock. Therefore, I'm going to act in the absence of Congress. And that is what you have seen from Joe Biden.
Another part of that that's hilarious that Joe Biden currently controls Congress, the Democrats control Congress, Democrats control the Senate. So he doesn't need to do that. It's just he doesn't like the fact that there is a check and balance in Congress. He doesn't like the fact that the Senate is not controlled by 60 Democratic senators or fifty five Democratic senators. It is controlled instead by 50 Democratic senators with Kamala Harris is the tiebreaker from the vice presidential seat. And he's got at least two Democrats who are not willing to break the filibuster.
So instead, he's just going to do things. And the things that he's going to do are quite dictatorial in nature. They're far reaching. They have significant impact. So, for example, Joe Biden announced yesterday he's going to be imposing government diversity and sensitivity training. This sounds like something that is not a big deal because you said yourself, OK, well, you know, people should be more sensitive. What's the problem with with sensitivity training and diversity?
Like, we like diversity. Diversity is good. What's the problem? Diversity. OK, what diversity and sensitivity training generally mean in the context of corporate and federal oversight and and and training? Generally, what those mean are these pathetic struggle sessions in which you are called before some sort of human resources, quote unquote, experts and your explained how if you say something completely inoffensive, it is actually racist. You are told that white supremacy dictates the way that all of America's institutions work.
And if you don't acknowledge your own white supremacy, then this is just because you are in fact a white supremacist in this how a lot of these diversity training regimens work. Now, Trump banned this in the last months of his administration. He wrote an executive order. And this governs inside the federal branch, inside the executive branch. So the president actually does have some power here because he gets to make the rules for the people who work for him.
And Trump said, I'm not going to have federal employees taught a bunch of claptrap about how America's institutions are inherently white supremacist and how if you believe in a colorblind meritocracy, this means you are a racist. A Joe Biden comes in in. The first thing he does is he says, you know what, we're going to go back to training people, that America is inherently unfair and cruel. And the only way to fix America is radical change to its institutions.
Here is Joe Biden saying this yesterday.
In the weeks ahead, I'll be reaffirming the federal government's commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility, building on the work we started in the Obama Biden administration. That's why I'm rescinding the previous administration's harmful ban on diversity and sensitivity training and abolished the offensive counterfactual 1776 commission. Unity and healing must begin with understanding and truth, not ignorance and lies.
OK, so him, first of all, calling the 1776 commission ignorance and lies is insane. The 1776 commission just teaches a traditional version of American history where America is generally the good guy. It does not whitewash America's history of racial discrimination. It does not whitewash the history of American slavery. It does not whitewash America's history of the treatment of Native Americans. Hey, that is not what it is designed to do. The basic notion here that Joe Biden is pushing is that we have to inculcate throughout our federal workforce and presumably throughout our educational system the idea that America is inherently bad and requires systematic and fundamental change on every single level.
That's a pretty big statement. Does that sound moderate to you or does that sound rather radical to you? And does it sound and he says he's going to use every area of the federal government to cram this down. Every area of the federal government is going to inculcate these values. That sounds a lot like using executive fiat in order to radically change the nature of the country. Hey, Biden went on along these lines. He said George Floyds death was a knee on the neck of justice now.
The specifics of the Georgia Floyd case are still in dispute, there is an ongoing judicial case about this. There is no evidence that has been presented thus far suggesting that it was racialized killing. It really I know that this has become the meme of the day, but the reality is no evidence has been presented that the killing of George Floyd was racially based. I mean, like like not any. And the best that you can say about the case is that it was an act of police brutality.
And there is no evidence that Derek Schavan, who was the officer in that case, murdered George Floyd because George Felos, a black man. In fact, there's pretty good evidence to suggest that Derek Schavan is going to have a fairly solid defense case, George. It was George Floyd was high as a kite on fentanyl. His autopsy showed that he had enough fentanyl in him to kill a horse. He was probably suffering from excited delirium. The full tape of the situation shows the George Floyd again.
The police were called by a shop owner to the situation because George Floyd had just passed a counterfeit bill. They show up. George Floyd resists arrest for a long time. He begs them not to put him in the car. They treat him actually pretty well. They say they're going to roll down the window for him. He then attempts to climb out of the car. He begs to be put on the ground. He's put on the ground and there he suffers a heart attack, it's pretty clear and ends up dying later.
That is excited delirium, OK? And the Minneapolis Police Department use of force actually allows the kind of restraint that Derek Schavan was using. So Chavan is actually going to have a fairly solid defense case, even though the tape is extremely ugly. And even if you believe that the that the system has to be changed in sort of the way that that force is used. But the point that Biden is making is far broader than that. He's not just arguing that this was an act of police brutality, which is possible and arguable.
He's arguing not only that it is an act of racism, which, again, no evidence has been provided to suggest that he is arguing that it is indicative of all of American law enforcement, that all of American society rose up because of the George Wallace case, because it was indicative of how black Americans are treated in this country. That's crazy. It is evidence free and it is being crammed down from the top of the American government. If Joe Biden had campaigned on the notion that he was going to completely remake American government on the basis of critical race theory, equity, garbage, he would have had a harder time in that election cycle.
He was considered the moderate on a lot of the stuff inside the Democratic Party. And he is not moderate, there's nothing about him that is moderate on these particular issues, and as we will see, this is going to have some very, very real ramifications.
The basic idea that all of America's institutions are rife with racism because George Foy died while under the knee of Derek Schavan is not just a stretch, it is a stretch based on a stretch. But again, the goal here is is more than anything, transformational change and whatever tool is available to leverage transformational change inside the American government, that is what Democrats and Joe Biden are about to use and they're about to use all executive power in order to accomplish that.
Is I here is here is Joe Biden talking about George Boyd, what many Americans didn't see or had simply refused to see couldn't be ignored any longer. Those eight minutes and 46 seconds that took George for his life opened the eyes of millions of Americans and millions of people around all over the world. It was knee on the neck of justice and it wouldn't be forgotten. It stirred the conscience and tens of millions of Americans. And in my view, it marked a turning point in this country's attitude toward racial justice.
OK, just a quick note. There are 37 million black Americans living in the United States as of twenty one years. According to the Washington Post database. They have they've calculated a grand total. They've documented a grand total of 15 black men shot in America by the police who are unarmed. That is a grand total in 2020 and the year before it was 14. So this idea that black people are being hunted down willy nilly by the cops and that American society is viciously racist despite the fact that it is literally illegal to discriminate in both private and public industries.
It's a pretty amazing claim, and yet that is going to be the basis for an enormous amounts of executive policy because that's how policy gets done these days from the top without legislative approval or legislative input. We can get to more of this in just one second. First, let us talk about an institution that has too much power over your life these days. That would be big tech, big tech companies. They have a ton of power in our country today as private entities.
They can operate pretty much as they feel free to do. Protect your personal data from them. With the VPN, I trust my own online protection Express VPN. When I use Express VPN, my connection, it gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers so these companies can't see my IP address at all. My Internet activity becomes anonymized. My network data is encrypted. I recommend Express VPN to anyone who uses the Internet. So pretty much everyone. The best part is you don't need to be tech savvy at all to use express VPN.
Just download the app on your phone or computer tap one button. You are now protected. Protect your internet activity with the VPN I use every single day. And in fact of the matter is you don't and shouldn't trust big tech to keep control of your information. Not only have they had hacks that have really harmed people's personal information in the past, I'll say, do you trust, trust the big tech pros to actually control your information and not use it against you?
I don't visit express VPN dotcom spend to get three extra months free on a one year package. That's Xpress has a VPN dotcom slash plan to get three extra months for Free Express VPN dotcom event. OK, so then Joe Biden calls for Susan Rice. It is absolutely astonishing that Susan Rice continues to have a career in public service. She blatantly lied to the American public, lied to the American public. A couple of days ago, I was talking about press secretaries and I said that their job is is very often to spin on behalf of their administrations.
And this means that the ones who are asked to spin on behalf of people who lie routinely and a blind eye would be like a lot of members of the Obama administration. And I said that there are people who I think didn't lie in their job, people like Dana Perino or Tony Snow. Susan Rice lied in her job all the damn time. Susan Rice went on national television. She suggested that the Benghazi attacks were a mere uprising. The idea was, of course, that it was it was created by a YouTube video as opposed to the complete malfeasance of the Obama era government.
Susan Rice is a radical on a wide variety of issues. She's radical on foreign policy. She's radical on domestic policy. Somehow, she ended up as the Domestic Policy Council director, despite the fact that she was a foreign policy adviser under Barack Obama. So apparently she's amazing at everything. Susan Rice, she is so good at everything that now she's going to run domestic policy. Oh, goody. So Susan Rice gets up there, by the way, the same woman who is involved in the unmasking of Michael Flynn and then wrote a little memo to file, you remember this little memo to file?
We did everything by the book, like the day before she left office. And it was like, well, she wrote a memo to file that means they did do everything by the book. She wasn't asked a single question about any of this stuff. At her press conference yesterday. She said every single agency in American government is going to be focused on equity. Now, people don't understand what the word equity means when Democrats use it because it sounds so much like equality.
Equality is not the same thing as equity. Equity is a catchall term, meaning fairness. But the question is, how do you determine what is fair? Left and right have very different definitions of fairness. Hey, Aristotle and Plato defined justice as people getting essentially what they deserve. That is what justice is. OK, but that is not what Democrats mean by justice or fairness. What Democrats mean by justice or fairness is you don't get what you deserve.
You get the same thing as the guy next to you, no matter what he deserves and no matter what you deserve. And not only that, it's not just that you personally get the same thing as the person next to you. It's that we ought to gauge by group outcome whether fairness has been achieved. So if black Americans have a lower net income than white Americans or presumably if white Americans have a lower income than Asian Americans, they never say that part because that part's awkward, then group equity has not been achieved.
Now, that last example, the fact that Asian-American households make more money than white American households. You're not going to hear Democrats talk about that because because, of course, they actually are not in favor even of equity in terms of fairness and outcome. They're not even like they don't even care about that. What they are really about is polarizing people by racial groups that they can use them as a coalition of the quote unquote, oppressed against the supposed white majority.
That is that is oppressing them. Despite the fact, by the way, that white voters split pretty heavily between Democrats and Republicans in ways that many other domestic racial groups do not. In any case, here is Susan Rice saying that every agency of the federal government is going to be focused on equity, which again means using the power of the federal government in order to cram down equal outcome, not protection of individual rights. On day one, the president signed an executive order directing an unprecedented whole of government initiative to embed racial equity across federal policies, programs and institutions that starts with a review of policies and institutions to redress systemic racism where it exists and to advance equity where we aren't doing enough.
Every agency will place equity at the core of their public engagement.
OK, this is a terrible idea. You know why that's a terrible idea? Because let's take a quick example and one that happens to be extraordinarily relevant right now, the example of vaccinations. If you place risk assessment at the top of your list, not equity. That means a lot of old people are going to get the vaccine because old people need the vaccine and people who are five do not. If, however, you are going to place equity at the top of your list, this means you're going to give essential workers who are 20 and black the vaccine before you give people who are 65 that vaccine, which not only makes no sense, it ends with more absolute numbers of dead black people because there are lots of black people who are over the age of 65 who will then not be privileged in the same way as people who are 20 and black.
It makes no sense to pay equity cuts against justice very often in the way the Democrats define equity, because what they really mean is group outcomes being of the same. And it doesn't matter what they have to do to achieve that. That is dangerous, dangerous stuff. As we'll see in just a second, this is just part of the running theme of the Biden administration or as Biden himself might call it, since he is now governing exclusively by executive fiat.
The Biden dictatorship. OK, so here is Susan Rice continuing along these lines. Susan Rice says federal agencies will be directed to take any steps to combat xenophobia. Here's the problem. All of these terms sound like people are going to be empowered to fight the bad things. The question is, what are the bad things? We can probably agree on some of the bad things that ought to be fought by the federal government. And then there are some things that we probably cannot agree on.
So here is Susan Rice using giant catch catchall, semantically overloaded terms to explain what the federal government is going to do under her auspices. The president will sign a memorandum directing all federal agencies to take steps to combat xenophobia and acts of violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who have been targeted by political leaders in our nation's response to covid-19. Again, these are continuation of our initial steps to advance racial justice and equity through early executive action.
OK, so nobody wants Asian Americans treated with violence because nobody in America should be treated with violence. This is one of the hallmarks of being an American and having your individual rights protected. Also, when she says, been treated by our political leaders as xenophobia. What she means by that is that Donald Trump said Chinese virus. That's what she means by that. And we can all read between the lines there. You don't have to read very far between the lines to get there.
That was not xenophobic when Trump said that it was the China virus because it originated in China. The. The basic terminology of of place from which it originated is not, in fact a phobia, but again, the goal here for the Biden administration is not going to be anything approaching the protection of individual rights.
It is going to be, in many cases, precisely the opposite. But that is not where the executive power is going to stop. Are you excited to Chuck Schumer? It's amazing. So the founders truly believed that legislatures were going to protect their own prerogatives and the legislatures were not going to allow the executive branch to infringe on what the executive branch on what the legislative branch does. The people would be zealous of their own powers. What the founders didn't contemplate is the idea that the legislature would actually delegate all of its powers to the executive and then they would just become basically a bunch of charity cases who are living off the taxpayer dime to occasionally pass giant budget busting omnibus packages.
And that's what originally originally that was not a possibility because Congress couldn't do any of that. It's also true that the the congresspeople, the senators particularly, were a lot more wedded to their state and used to be that senators were appointed by their state legislatures. They're answerable to their state legislatures. Now, they're not right. They're directly elected by the people, which is a horrible constitutional amendment. What does that mean? It means that if you're a senator, your chief goal in life is to avoid responsibility.
The easiest way to avoid responsibility is just saying that the executive should do it. So here's Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, saying that Joe Biden should just use executive powers to do whatever he wants. In fact, he should use executive power to declare climate change an emergency. And then he will be able to he will be able to access a bunch of emergency powers at his disposal. And now you'll recall that some of us warned about this when President Trump declared the situation on our national border an emergency, a national emergency, and started using executive power to do things about it, some of us weren't.
You might want to go to the legislature for that, because once you start declaring things national emergencies, you have now opened the door to Democrats doing exactly this. Because once you say that it's a national emergency, then presumably the executive, the president of the United States can now declare that he wants cap and trade or that he wants to shut down fracking or that he wants to do a bunch of things that he actually doesn't have the power to do, because now it's a national emergency.
Here is the Senate majority leader, again, the leader of the majority in the Senate saying the legislature should be completely left behind. Biden, just go ahead and do what he wants and declare climate change a national emergency. By the way, climate change is not a national emergency. It's not close to a national emergency. Climate change is not even a global emergency. Climate change is a thing that is happening. It is going to have some deleterious effects over the course of the next century.
And people are going to adapt, as they always have throughout human history, to a change in climate over time. The notion that if we do nothing right now that tomorrow tsunamis are going to wipe out half of that is not what an emergency means. The eventuality of bad things like I'll give you an example, the national debt is not a national emergency. That is something that eventually is going to have to be paid off, is going to result in massive austerity programs, cuts to government spending and or increases in taxes and inflation.
Is that a, quote, unquote, national emergency where the president can just declare it? No. Bad things happening eventually over the course of time is not a national emergency. But the goal here, again, the point here is that the executive in our country has essentially become an elected dictatorship, that we can shift every four years. And Joe Biden used to acknowledge this until he got the powers now is real happy with it. Here's Chuck Schumer basically declaring himself irrelevant and saying that Joe Biden should do whatever he wants.
I think it might be a good idea for President Biden to call a climate emergency flight because there he can relate to what you're saying. Then he can do many, many things under the emergency powers of the president that wouldn't have to go through that. He could do without legislation. Now, Trump used this emergency for a stupid war, which wasn't an emergency. But if there ever was an emergency, climate is one. So I would suggest that they explore looking at climate as an emergency, which would give them more flexibility.
After all, it's a crisis.
OK, that's unbelievable. The notion that climate change, which is a gradual change in the climate over the course of literally a century, is more of an emergency than vast numbers of people crossing our southern border illegally in the now. I don't even think that was a national emergency and should be declared a national emergency. That was a problem. It was not a national emergency. And national emergency is like we were attacked. Right. 911 national emergency. Pearl Harbor National Emergency.
Climate change national, but again, the goal here is that Joe Biden can then use powers delegated specifically for emergencies in order to simply override his actual executive powers. So, for example, he could use the National Emergencies Act. He can tap into a suite of more than one hundred additional powers, according to at Dotcom. Those usually it's used in order to in order for natural disaster or something, but there are some that are theoretically kind of large.
So, for example, you could just redirect a bunch of money from the Pentagon toward building solar panels, or you can impose sanctions against countries that use fossil fuels. Or you could reinstitute a ban on U.S. exports of crude oil. You could send emergency aid packages to states, tribes and local governments just simply on the basis of climate change. So this is I'm sorry, this is ridiculous, but but the goal here is that Joe Biden should just govern from the top.
You just govern from the top. By the way, one of the ways he's governing from the top, he has now announced that he's going to pause oil and gas sales on public lands. According to the Associated Press, he has set to announce a wide ranging moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on U.S. lands and waters as his administration moves quickly to reverse Trump administration policies on energy and the environment and address climate change. The drilling moratorium is among several climate related actions Biden is outlining on Wednesday, according to two people with knowledge of his plans, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Biden is also likely to direct officials to conserve 30 percent of the country's lands and ocean waters in the next 10 years, initiated a series of regulatory actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and elevate climate change to a national security priority. Again, how the executive ended up with this much power, it's frankly on the legislature, which has completely abdicated its duty. I remember, Captain, I'm not going to ban fracking. He's only going to ban fracking. Where he can is the basic idea here.
And, you know, he's just going to get rid of Keystone XL. And by the way, we're not even doing the fracking and we're not even doing the drilling on Keystone XL. It's happening in Canada. It's just a pipeline. But trying to move against fracking on public lands is, of course, a way for him to, No. One, undermine. This isn't even connected to climate change. And fracking is one of the single greatest producers of carbon emissions in the United States because fracking has largely replaced coal emissions, as well as normal oil exploration, fracking and natural gas, significantly less carbon emissions than those other forms of power.
All this is designed to do is cater to the environmental left. Good times also, by the way, he has his plan to pause all deportations. So the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, David Makovsky, last Wednesday wrote a memorandum directing DHS components to conduct a review of policies and practices concerning immigration enforcement. And it sets interim policies during the course of that review, including a 100 day pause on certain removals to enable focusing the department's resources where they are most needed.
The that that attempt to place a moratorium on deportations has now been held up by a Texas judge. We'll see whether that eventually holds up in court. So the powers that are being centralized in the executive branch are exorbitant. They're going to be highly damaging. Just be aware that this is our form of government. Now, it is not a good form of government, is not a constitutional form of government. And conservatives need to find every legal auspices they can or to fight back.
I mean, using the courts, it means that Congress needs to fight back and grab back its own prerogatives. But unlikely to happen, given the fact that we are now an executive agency with vestigial legislature in just a second. We're going to get to covid policy because supposedly remember when Biden was campaigning on how he was going to get control of this thing, get his arms around it in the first week. He's just a mess. He's just a mess.
And by the way, if you are if Trump had been as much of a mess about covid policy in the last week of his administration as Biden were about covid policy in the first week of his administration, you think the coverage would be this glowing? It's all glowing coverage for Biden. Of course, we'll get to that in just one second. First, let's talk about the fact you don't want to go to an auto parts store. You just don't there's not a great reason to go right now if you had a great reason to go ever.
You're going to go they're going to wait in line. You're going to go to the front of the line. You're not going to have the part. They're going to order it online. Then they're going to charge you. How about instead of that, you just skip the auto parts store entirely and you go to rock, auto, dotcom. It's a lot easier than walking into the auto parts store answering a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to and then having them learn the part online anyway.
Instead, you just go to rock star dot com and use the power of the interweb at your desk in your pocket. Rock star dot com will always offer the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear like airlines do. Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same part? Rock order, dot com? It's a family business in terms of auto parts. Customers online for 20 years go to rock auto dot com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
Best of all, prices Iraq auto dotcom are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do it yourselfers. Why spend up to twice as much for the same part? The rock star dot com catalog is unique, remarkably easy to navigate quickly, see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands specifications and prices you prefer. They've got amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need. Rock, auto, dotcom, head on, over to rock on or not.
Come right now. See all the parts available for your car or truck. Right, Shapiro in there. How did you hear about this box? So they know that we sent you already. Coming up, I'm going to do covid policy, which again is just to get to that in a second. First, let me remind you, daily wire, we are joining the culture fights. We've talked about the culture war for long enough. We are now joining the culture war by making our own content.
Earlier this month, we released our first film, Run, Hide, Fight, exclusively for Deleware members. You can catch it over at daily Wired.com on our mobile app or our streaming apps at Apple TV and Roku. If you're not a daily watch, remember yet use promo code our H.F. to get twenty five percent off. That is our H.F. for twenty five percent off. You'll notice if you go to Rotten Tomatoes right now that critics didn't like the film, but you loved it.
If you look at the viewers, they loved the film and that's the kind of stuff we are going to be taking, stuff that probably pisses off the critics because critics are looking for weakness. We are not going to be providing it. So if they are looking for weakness, they have come to the wrong place. Good news audiences tired of that stuff as well and want an alternative catch, run, hide, fight over a daily Wired.com on our mobile app or on our streaming apps at Apple TV and Roku.
If you're not a daily wear, remember yet use promo code R.A.F. to get twenty five percent off. That is our H.F. for twenty five percent off. You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Now, the wonderful thing about executive run government is that our executives are great at everything if we know one thing, it is that when you centralized power in one area of the government, usually they're amazing at it. And if they fail, it's because they don't have enough power. See, this is always the logic of the media. The president has enormous power in our system. If he is given not enough power, however, then things fail. So we have to give more power.
But then if he fails, that's because he didn't have enough power is a completely unfalsifiable proposition. So Joe Biden has been complaining for a little under a year about how the executive branch really needs to take more control of the covid response, because we need more more power at the executive level. OK, what if they suck at it? What if they're just bad at it? This never occurs to anybody. It's amazing. As a country, we're essentially a bunch of morons.
I got to say, we complain constantly about the government sucking at everything that we're like. Yes, but if they had more power, perhaps that would fix the problem. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That's like me saying my kids make a bunch of bad decisions every night and want to eat candy all night and then run around in the nude. This is what made my small, small children do. Probably, if I give them more power, will be better.
And probably I'm not giving them enough control. What are you talking about? Our government just wants to go on sugar binges and run around in the nude. And then it was like, what if we just give them more power, stop being idiots? How about this? If you didn't have an idea, I know this crazy idea here. OK, let's say you're on the list and you really hated Trump. You really hated him. You didn't like him.
You thought he was bad and you thought that he was a dictator and really scary. And now let's say you're on the right and you look at President Biden and say, I don't like that guy. That guy has way too much power and he's exercising it in the wrong ways. I have an idea is a crazy idea. Hey, it's an idea that's only been considered by, like, you know, the Constitution. That idea is the president has very little power.
How about that, and we go back to a system where elected representatives are elected more than once every four years and there's a pretty high level of churn and they're checked and balanced by other forms of government. They leave you alone. I know. Crazy, right? And then you wouldn't care so much as the president of the US. We're not going to say, OK, fine, we're not going to do that. Fine. All right. So here is how covid policy looks when it is centralized.
So within the last week, Joe Biden has now reversed himself one thousand two hundred seventy three times. Don't worry, he's the greatest truth teller who ever lived. And also Captain Normalcy, who loves chocolate chip ice cream. But he's reversed himself one million seven hundred thirty two thousand times in the last week, uncovered policy. So, for example, yesterday, literally yesterday, Joe Biden, the most honest and wondrous of all coveted leaders, he said that Americans should all be able to get the vaccine this spring if they need it.
If you think anyone would be able to get over. Oh, I know. I think it'll be this spring. I think we'll be able to do that to spring. And but it's going to be a logistical challenge that exceeds anything we've ever tried in this country. But I think we can do that. I feel confident that by summer we're going to be well on our way to heading toward herd immunity and increasing the access for people who aren't on the first on the list all the way going down to children.
So the spring is pretty exciting stuff. That's optimistic stuff. And also, I don't know why he's talking about vaccinating like three year olds. That's not really something that we should be considering at this point. But it turns out that that wasn't true. So here was Joe Biden today. He's now flipped. It turns out not everybody will be able to be vaccinated in the spring now. It'll be by the end of summer. So at this rate, we give him another week and it'll be like the end of twenty, twenty five, because apparently every single day he's adding a quarter onto his estimate here.
Harry was up by the end of summer, probably maybe we expect these additional 200 million doses to be delivered this summer and some of it will come as early began to come in early summer, but by the middle, by the midsummer, that this vaccine will be there and the order and that increases the total vaccine order in the United States by 50 percent from 400 million order to 600 million. This enough vaccine to fully vaccinate 300 Americans, oh, by the end of the summer, the beginning of the fall.
Wow. That's a lot of vaccine for 300 Americans. I'll be honest with you. I thought that he was going to say three hundred million Americans right there for three. I feel like that is enough vaccine. I feel like six hundred million doses is enough for three hundred Americans. And then he sort of fell asleep and that was and that was said. OK, so Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, again, her job is to fib on behalf of Joe Biden here.
She was walking back Biden literally over the past 48. So we have had there was no vaccine plan. That's a lie we have had. We're going to vaccinate everybody by the end of spring. That was not true. We've gotten it's a massive increase in dosage for us to try to shoot for 100 million vaccinations in 100 days. That was not true. We got we're going to vaccinate 100 million Americans in 100 days. That was not true because it turns out that it's just going to be 100 million first doses, not one hundred million second doses as well.
So we've had all of that in the course of the last week. Here is but don't worry, it's the most honest, trustworthy, transparent and serious administration you've ever seen. It's amazing. Here is Jen Psaki, who literally gets paid to just spin away all of Joe Biden's problems. So good luck to her because that dude is barely sentient.
What the president's goal is, is ensuring to that there's greater availability. In the spring, he will push his team. He pushes his team on covid and updates on it, even when it's a meeting about other issues. This is his focus every single day. And but the fact is, every American is not going to be eligible this spring. We're going to continue to increase supply. That's part of it. And he has said many, many times it's going to take months and months for a broad swath of the population to be vaccinated.
Oh, goody. Oh, well, that's that's exciting stuff, by the way. I love when she's like he's pushing his team. He's pushing his team. Dude couldn't push over one of those inflatable punching bags, you know, the ones that you get for your kids where they punch them and they kind of fall over.
Joe Biden couldn't push that over like he's pushing his team. Hey, by the way, Team Biden is also lying about what is happening here in the states that I occupy Florida. So on Tuesday, Joe Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, who again says things that are untrue on a fairly regular basis, suggested that Florida was lagging behind in vaccine distribution. Sakey should have noted that Florida is holding a lot of vaccines to get second doses to elderly residents who have already received the first dose, the census put out a statement said the insinuation that Florida is underutilizing vaccines is totally disingenuous.
Florida is number one in the country among the top 10 most populous states for vaccine doses per capita. Additionally, Florida is averaging more than three hundred thousand first doses per week. But we are not going to divert second doses away from our seniors. If the implication is that we should be giving those second doses away to other people. That is not the way the FDA has prescribed the series. We are also number one in the nation by far in vaccination of seniors.
Florida has vaccinated more than one million seniors 65 and older to date. If we're given additional first doses, we're ready to double our output. And that was the response after Jen Psaki on Monday suggested that the census was blowing it in Florida. Again, the census has become sort of the whipping post for the Democrats, which is insane because, again, Florida currently ranks twenty sixth in the nation in deaths per million, despite having a population the same as New York and significantly older, meaning significantly more vulnerable to covid.
Sakey on Monday had suggested that they've only distributed 50 percent of the vaccines they've been given in Florida, so they have a lot of vaccine, literally. The federal government has told them they are not supposed to distribute the second shots of vaccine. There's some people like me who say, you know what, we shouldn't be holding this in abeyance. We should literally just be giving out everything that is there. But as long as the federal government is dictating that you cannot do that or you should not do that, they don't get to complain about that.
Hey, speaking of which, the greatest of all federal response is being led by the greatest of all possible doctors, Dr. Anthony Fauci. Now, again, I will note once more, I have not been a.. Actually this whole time. Now I just find the guy to be unbelievably annoying and self-serving. I think that he has pumped himself up beyond all accomplishment during this pandemic. I think he has accomplished very little during this pandemic. I think many of the things that he has stated along the way are untrue.
I think he's taken every possible position that it is possible to take. He's been asking in our time asking. He's been both pro herd immunity and anti herd immunity. He has been both pro opening the schools and pro closing the schools. OK, so here is Anthony Fauci saying we need to rejoin the World Health Organization because the pandemic came from China, which makes no sense. Literally, the World Health Organization acted as a PR agency for the Chinese while they lied to the rest of the planet.
Here's to actually saying we should rejoin them anyway.
Certainly the WTO needs to have some reforms. There's no doubt about. Oh, but when you're dealing with a global pandemic, you need a global organization to coordinate.
That means then the door is open that this could have come from a market in Warsaw. Am I right about that?
Oh, absolutely. I mean, that was one of the things that I've been talking and my colleagues have been talking about for some time.
Oh, well. Well, then what's also Anthony Fouche, you remember that time that he said you shouldn't wear a mask because he was lying and then he said you should definitely wear a mask because masks are super important. Now he's literally doubling down. We should wear two masks, according to Anthony Pouchy. It's amazing to masks will do it, guys. Here's Anthony Pouchy. Explaining to masks will be great. This is a physical covering to prevent droplets and virus to get in, so if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.
And that's the reason why you see people either double masking or doing a version of it in ninety five. OK, how about like three masks? There are some people who are recommending that. In fact today Matt Walsh is going to be talking about all that. And check out Matt Walsh's show at 1:00 p.m. Eastern over at daily where I come. So there's a graphic that MSNBC put up about this and the graphic showed the efficacy rate for two masks and it was 75 percent.
And then the efficacy rate for three masks, which was 90 percent. As one of our producers noted, it would be fun if they showed the efficacy rate for one mask, which actually is not all that high, especially if it is a cloth mask, because that might give the lie to the idea that masks are going to be the sole solution to this entire problem. But I have I have a better, better solution. I mean, honestly, as long as we are just saying that you should just be strapping on the masks, like, I don't understand why four isn't better, 90 percent isn't good enough.
You won't get to 100 percent. We need at least four masks. I feel like it's like Zeno's paradox. Like the more masks you wear, the smaller the incremental improvement. But if we're ever going to get to 100 percent protection here, what we're actually going to need is what I call the plastic bag solution. This is where you take a plastic bag, you put it over your head, and then you take a rubber band and you strap it around your neck.
Now, there are some side effects you're not going to have called it. If you do that 100 percent, you're not going to have covered. There are some bad side. There's some side effect. Eliminate your oxygen intake will be I mean, you'll die, but but you won't have covid. And that's really, really the important thing. I don't know about you, but I find it comforting to know that if I just strangle myself, then presumably I will never die of covid.
I'd like to remind you that if you're under the age of sixty five, the rates of death on covered are under five and one thousand like well under it. So, yeah, this seems this seems sensible. I'm sure that most Americans are going to strap on eighty three masks. This is all. Let's give these people more power. They're great at this. They're great at this. Speaking of which, when it comes to covid policy, as we noted yesterday on this program, the teachers unions are in control and these are the greatest and wisest people.
These are the people who teach our children, which God help our kids might seriously like. God help them. So the Chicago Teachers Union has suggested that they are not going to go back to work. In fact, they're currently engaged in what most legal enterprise believes, an illegal strike backed by the American Federation of Teachers, backed by the Biden administration. Presumably, the Chicago Teachers Union has said we are we are not going to reopen until it's perfectly safe.
What does that mean? They've yet to say they believe that they need more diversity hires. And I have no idea why that has to do with it. They also are saying that they want to make sure not just that kids are wearing masks, but that every kid is tested and it's negative or every kid is vaccinated, like, OK, it's just an excuse. They don't want to go back to work. And so they have, I think, provided us with the greatest example of why teachers unions should not exist I've ever seen, and I don't even mean the strike, I mean that over the past twenty four hours, the Chicago Teachers Union put out a little film of teachers unions, dance teachers, dancing for school closings.
I've never seen a better case for defunding these Chicago teachers than this, number one, that these people have jobs. And number two, that these people feel that this is important work, what they are doing right here. So here are six Chicago Teachers Union teachers dancing for school closings. It's magnificent stuff. And I will I will give you what it says underneath. Safety. Is essential. Keep our students. And our teachers. I don't think any of those people should ever work again.
I'm not a member of the council culture, but if I if I were if I were, everyone in this video should be canceled. Yeah. Yes.
You clearly are leading a very difficult life, being paid to do nothing while dancing on a bridge alone. Good stuff, solid stuff right there, by the way. One thing you definitely cannot do is I have dance classes outside. Definitely can't do that. Safety is essential. This is then the Chicago Teachers Union put this out as a piece of propaganda on their own behalf. And as long as we're talking about government incompetence, so the government has decided to cave to these jokers, which is just amazing, then I love this to Andrew Cuomo, the worst of all American governors.
OK, just this guy is just a bleep show. He literally I can't believe this guy. Like, there are no words to describe how horrible Andrew Cuomo is. The guy won an Emmy. They considered him as a possibility for VP. Here is Andrew Cuomo saying yesterday that what we need is better government, more power, better government. He said incompetent government kills people. Does he own a mirror? Our mirror is illegal in New York. New York has still still the second worst deaths per million ratio in America after New Jersey.
Here's Andrew Cuomo saying incompetent government kills people. I just. The lack of self-awareness, it's pretty incredible. Here he is, give that man an. We were ambushed like no other state, Nicole. And again, it was from federal incompetence, they thought the virus was in China, it had left China had gone to Europe, and it came here for three months before they ever knew.
Incompetent government kills people, incompetent government kills people. More people died than needed to die in covid. That's the truth.
OK, you know, it'd be really bad is if then somebody wrote a triumphal book about their own leadership uncovered and then New York got hit by a second wave of covid that be really bad, right? That be kind of incompetent leadership. Andrew Cuomo, I love Nicolle Wallace.
Mm. So true. So true. Speaking of which, I just have to note, the media continue to just mirror all this crap. There's all there's all they just do. They're just state media. That's what they want to be. That's what they want to be. The Washington Post this week altered a profile of of Kamala Harris. OK, so the it's pretty it's pretty amazing. So there was a Washington Post story on Maya Harris, who's the sister of Kamala Harris.
Right. Who was then running for president. This is a story back from July 20 19 by Ben Terris. He the lead of the story was this incredibly awkward and weird story in which Kamala Harris was talking about how campaign it was like a prisoner, a campaign made her feel like a prisoner. Kamala Harris described to her sister in the story how preparations for a Democratic primary debate in Miami had allowed her to break from the grueling primary campaign schedule, quote, It's a treat that a prisoner gets what they ask for a morsel of food, please, Camila said, shoving her hands forward as if clutching a metal plate, her voice now trembling like an old British man locked in a Dickensian jail cell and water.
I just want what your standards really go out the window. So that was in the original profile of Kamala Harris back in July 2019. Kind of a telling thing that she is treating herself as a victim, as though she living in a prison right now. What did The Washington Post do? Well, they were putting together a compendium of pieces on Kamala Harris because she's the new vice president. They cut it. They just disappeared it. Eric Boehme of Reason magazine pointed out that the Post deleted that passage from the Maya Harris profile.
Instead, they replaced it with a more conventional introduction in a new version published this month, Finding People to Trust in politics, a field full of mercenaries with their own interests at heart can be a tough thing to do. Isn't that nice? So why exactly would they just get rid of that paragraph? The Post says and repurposed and updated stories about Harrison Biden for its inaugural coverage. Oh, is that what they did?
So you wouldn't want people to have that awkward feeling of recognizing that Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate and is in fact, not a wonderful human being, that instead they just cut it, they just cut it. So that's exciting stuff. Other exciting things are happening as well in the world of wonderful media. So, for example, the L.A. Times, the L.A. Times is now going to introduce a beat. It is called Covering Up Kamala Harris. Here's how they described it in a tweet, quote.
Kamala Harris is the first vice president who is black, South Asian, female, and the direct descendants of immigrants. Wow. I mean, that's pretty specific. I wouldn't expect her to be that many vice presidents who are where all of the above black, South Asian female and the direct descendants of immigrants. I mean, that's not a lot right there. Well done. Introducing covering Kamala Harris, a beat dedicated to her historic rise to the White House.
Follow us on Instagram. And then there's a picture of Kamala Harris. Looking out at the camera wistfully, it's kind of an animation, it's like this actually weird kind of creepy animation. And then the background is this rainbow of color, the L.A. Times. Honestly, why bother having an office of an office of press relations when you just have the L.A. Times for you? Meanwhile, Daniel Dale kept, in fact, check over there. So he he wrote a piece yesterday called Fact Checking Seven Statistical Claims from Biden's quite valuable economic speech.
Oh, you mean the fact checkers are just going to go right to sleep over at CNN? That's exciting stuff. They're only going to fact check the stuff that's accurate. They're just going to skip the part that's inaccurate. So we're probably not going to do tons of fact checking on all of his vaccine failures thus far, like all of his untruths. That's what we're going to fact check, that sort of stuff, are we? Meanwhile, over at Newsweek, so Tom Cotton, there's a piece at Newsweek claiming that Tom Cotton had engaged in stolen valor because he served in the 101st Airborne.
So, I mean, that's something he also graduated from Army Ranger School. He calls himself an Army Ranger. Well, they say you're not allowed to call yourself an Army Ranger unless you actually serve with the Rangers, because he didn't. He served in the 101st Battalion, which is bad. He's not now. It's stolen valor. And so there's only one problem. Newsweek wrote a piece in 2015 in which they talked about two women becoming rangers after graduating from the Army Ranger school.
OK, so what did Newsweek do they have this that this conflict, right, because they had one piece saying that Tom Cotton had stolen valor by calling himself an Army Ranger after graduating from Ranger school. Then they had another piece from 2015 where they themselves acknowledged that people who graduated from Ranger school were, in fact, known as Rangers. So what do they do? According to National Review, Cotton's office contacted Newsweek this weekend to point out that Newsweek had identified female Ranger school graduates as Army Rangers in 2015.
Newsweek responded by editing its 2015 story to confirm to conform to Salon's new smear of cotton. The 2015 Newsweek story no longer says the two women will, quote, become Rangers'. The edited version says they will, quote, be allowed to wear the coveted Ranger tab on their uniforms. So they're going back in now and re editing old stories, not just The Washington Post, Newsweek to their readers, editing old stories. And they are just rewriting history.
I mean, this is like when people say Orwellian, this is actually like straight from Orwell or where the guy was the main character in 1984, literally sits there and rewrites historical stories to conform to modern day ideas. So they are now going and rewriting old stories to conform to the narrative that Tom Cotton has engaged in stolen valor and the narrative that Kamala Harris is a wonderful person who never says awkward things. They're just doing this in real time and shouldn't really be a shock.
I mean, the dictionary did this with the term preference after Mazie Hirono, idiot senator, decided that it was a wonderful, wonderful idea to suggest that Amy CONI Barrett was somehow a homophobe for using the term sexual preference. If the media are the the extent to which the media are just going to be a government outlet at this point, it's pretty hard. It's pretty hard to overstate that. Great examples yesterday, Peter Doocy was was talking to Joe Biden is questioning Joe Biden and Deucy asked a pretty solid question, which has Biden had had a phone call with Vladimir Putin?
And he said, so what did you talk about? Putin? Perfectly normal question. And Biden immediately responds by by kind of ripping on DEUCY because this is the way it's going to be in the White House press room. Essentially, there's going to be the one reporter who is the gadfly who all the rest of the press hate because he's killing the vibe. The vibe in that room is supposed to be the vibe on a unappointed. And here is Peter Zusi over there ringing a cowbell and saying, you know, guys, when you want to leave off the lubing, you might at some point want to ask a difficult question.
And Joe Biden's going to like that guy. See that guy? He's that that guy. And everybody laughs. That's exactly what happened at the press conference yesterday. You know, I you so if you can produce, he says, so what did you talk to Putin about? And he says, you he sends his best man, Hamza. Imagine if Donald Trump had said that you think the media would have would have covered that a little differently. Donald Trump refuses to answer questions about Vladimir Putin and their discussion of the.
Yes, our intrepid media not just there to cover Joe Biden, but to physically wipe his ass. Exciting, exciting stuff. OK. Meanwhile, here is your impeachment update. Here is your impeachment update. So yesterday, Rand Paul sponsored a bill it was designed to go to essentially a resolution that suggested that impeachment was illegal because Donald Trump is no longer impeachable, because he's no longer president of the United States. Now, I think the legal case on that is somewhat sketchy.
I think there's a fairly solid constitutional argument that you can, in fact, be convicted by the Senate after you are impeached, after you are in office in order barred from running again. Nonetheless, forty five Republican senators voted against the impeachment, which means nobody's going to vote in favor of the impeachment. Right is going to be it's going to be five that we already know about who are likely to vote in favor of the impeachment. That would probably be Mitt Romney.
It's going to be Murkowski. It'll be Susan Collins. It'll be Ben Sasse. That will be the crew. Essentially, everybody else is not I mean, even Mitch McConnell, who is sort of suggesting that he might vote in favor of impeachment, it seems like he is moving pretty hard against that. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is is the other one. Rand Paul tweeted out, the Senate just voted on a constitutional point of order. Forty five senators agreed the sham of a trial is unconstitutional.
That is more than will be needed to acquit and to eventually end this partisan impeachment process. The trial is dead on arrival in the Senate. Now, the the statements that are put out by a variety of Republicans are worth talking about. To Tim Scott, senator from South Carolina, who was quite critical of Trump. He put out a statement. He said, I'm unconvinced the Senate has the authority to hold a trial against a private citizen if President Trump was such an existential threat.
Why did Speaker Pelosi rush the impeachment only to wait 12 days to send the article to the Senate? If the purpose of this trial is to remove a president that was already done on January 20th when Trump left the White House. But now, once again, the Senate is faced with the time consuming task of determining the merits of yet another article of impeachment on now former President Trump. We need to get back to the people's work. We need to get vaccines distributed, save small businesses, et cetera.
And by the way, I think that that last statement is going to reflect American opinion quite faster. If this continues to drag on and people still can't get the vaccines and the economy continues to be in the doldrums, people are going be like, why are you spending time on this? Again, Trump is not the president anymore. OK, but here is the broader argument against impeachment, the broader argument against impeachment is once again, there is no objective standard by which Trump's conduct is, quote unquote, impeachable.
The reason I say the reason I say quote unquote there is because you can impeach for literally anything. Impeachment is a political process. It is not, in fact, a legal process. But the question is, what standard are using to impeach Trump? If the standard being used to impeach Trump is that Trump engaged in prevarication about the outcome of an election and be real hard to do that and said a neutral standard given the fact that for four years Democrats kept claiming over and over and over that Donald Trump was not, in fact, the rightful president of the United States and that he had worked with the Russians in order to game the system.
If the standard is that Donald Trump used inflammatory language in order to incite violence, then you run into another problem, which is you're either going to have to impeach pretty much everybody who engaged in inflammatory language or you don't have a neutral standard. If the standard is that Donald Trump challenged an election that was legally held and legally certified and that anybody who challenges an election that is legally held and legally certified needs to be thrown out of Congress. Well, then you end up at the Mazie Hirono position.
The dumbest person in the United States Senate here is the senator from Hawaii saying that it's not just that Trump should be impeached, it's that Ted Cruz and Josh Haley should be thrown out of the Senate. You know, these two senators, they did more than just simply have a disagreement over the election results. They were very busy just putting out the lie that that the election was stolen. So they were ringleader's. And we're not for these two senators basically leading the charge in the Senate to sign on to these these objections, even though 100 House Republicans object to those objections, would have gotten nowhere.
So they needed senators to sign on to the objections. And Senators Holly and Cruz provided that leadership on the Senate side to contest a fair and free election result.
So the goal for a lot of Democrats, again, is not just to lump in Trump with the riders, but also to lump in Cruz and rally with riders and then to jump in, presumably everybody who wanted to challenge election results, even though I think that is wrong, they want to lump them in with the actual people who did physical violence and then they want to lump in every conservative with those people. Right. That is that is the eventual goal here.
And they're being fairly clear about this. And again, there is no actual hard standard by which this constitutes illegal incitement. There's a point that Rand Paul made and I'm less enthused by the by the constitutional idea that you can't impeach somebody already out of office. I'm more I'm more motivated by it, by Rand Paul's argument here. He says, you know, you guys are using a pretty interesting standard of incitement, considering that you literally will not say a damn word about people in your own party using inflammatory language and then people using that inflammatory language as an excuse to do violence.
But now you want to impeach Trump. All right. Here is Rand Paul making this point. No Democrat will honestly ask whether Bernie Sanders incited the shooter that nearly killed Steve Scalise and volunteer coach, the shooter nearly pulled off a massacre. I was there because he fervently believed the false and inflammatory rhetoric spewed by Bernie and other Democrats, such as the Republican health care plan for the uninsured. Is that you? As this avowed Bernie supporter shot Steve Scalise, nearly killing him and shot one of our coaches in two or three of our staff, he screamed, this is for health care.
Ask me or anyone if that's incitement.
OK. Rand Paul happens to be correct about this. And people who are vague in their standards should not be surprised when the standards come around to bite them directly on the ticket. If your standard for incitement is using inflammatory language and politics. Pretty much everybody is toast pretty much. But again, the goal here for Democrats is really threefold. One is the moral castigation of every single Republican. The only Republicans who are good Republicans are the ones who do our work in this moment, according to the left.
Mitt Romney is their friend right now. Wait until Mitt Romney does something they don't like. He'll become an enemy again very, very quickly. So goal number one, all Republicans are bad, regardless of what you think about the election. And no matter whether you condemn the capital riot, you are bad, right? Not just that. Also, this creates a political conundrum for Republicans and Republicans vote against the impeachment. Then the idea is that the Republican Party has backed Trump and Trump will be the guy going forward.
And if the Republican Party does back impeachment, it gets rid of Trump. Then Trump is motivated to run revenge campaigns against Republicans. So that is what Democrats are setting up right here. And when they're on their moral high horse, about like I'm not going to listen to Joy Behar and her moral high horse here. I'm sorry. She has no leg to stand on. She's like, well, anybody who voted not to convict, they have blood on their hands.
Truly, Dreux. They are just going to point out, I know that we're not supposed to make this comparison because it happens to be a perfectly apples to apples comparison. But the entire Democratic Party infrastructure essentially backed the case behind Black Lives Matter said that it was wonderful worth pursuing. Black Lives Matter ended with two billion dollars in damages across the United States and at least a dozen deaths on its hands. I don't hear any of these people who are using extraordinarily inflammatory language talking about the blood on their own hands.
Of course, they're never going to talk about that because frankly, they don't. You only have blood on your hands if you direct people to do violence. Nonetheless, this is the talking point for Democrats. Enjoy. They are being the end of the Democratic Party. Just spells it right out.
These people who are not going to vote for a conviction will be remembered. We will remember them because if they let him go without any kind of accountability, trump, this will happen again. It will happen again. And we will remember those names of that Senate senators and the House people who decided not to convict this guy because the blood is on their hands.
Then I'm sure that all those Republican senators are gravely fearful of the wrath of Joy Baker, because, you know, if they if they had voted to convict probably Joy, they would probably vote for them or not.
There's a basic rule that now applies in American politics. If the only people ripping you is unfortunate because in principle no longer applies, if the only people ripping you are the people on the other side, you're basically fine. Everybody knows that right, left and center, because anybody who thinks that Joy Baker or Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi are repositories of principle on this thing. Yeah, I really, really don't think so. All right. We'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content.
In the meantime, go check out Matt Walsh's show. It is up at one thirty PM Eastern. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is The Best Show. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe to. We're available on Apple podcast Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts, also, be sure to check out the other daily WYO podcasts, including the Andrew Clavon Show, The Michael Moore Show and The Matt Walsh Show.
Thanks for listening. The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Kolten has executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising producers are Matthias Glover and Robert Sterling, production manager, the White House. Our associate producers are Rebecca Doyle and Samantha Domínguez. The show is edited by Adam Simon's Audio is mixed by Mike Kamina. Hair and makeup is by Fabiola Kristina, production assistant Jessica Crans. The Ben Shapiro Show is a daily wire production copyright.
Twenty twenty one on the Matt Wall Show. We talk about the things that matter, real issues that affect you and your family, our country, not just politics, but culture, faith, current events, all the fundamentals. If they matter to you, come check out the show.