Ep. 2107 - No, Divorce Isn’t ‘Fine For The Kids’
57:20 Share

Parents want safer online experiences for their teens. That's why Instagram is introducing Teen Accounts with automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see, giving parents more peace of mind. Learn more at Instagram.com slash teen accounts.

Folks, we'll get to all the news in just a moment. First, before we begin, my team and I would love to hear from you. To make sure we are delivering the content and analysis you value the most, please take a moment to complete our short survey. You can find the link in this episode's description. Alrighty, so we have new details that are emerging on the suspect in the shooting at the Abundant Life Christian School. According to the Washington Post, the student who's the suspect in this particular crime is

Killed two people, wounded six others at her small Christian school in Madison, Wisconsin. It shows that she had a turbulent home life, according to court records. Her parents divorced and remarried multiple times. She had been enrolled in therapy. The Madison police chief, Sean Barnes, said at a Tuesday news conference, there are always signs of a school shooting before it occurred. This teen is just one of nine female school shooters in the last 25 years, according to a database maintained by the Washington Post. She's also among the younger recent victims.

suspect in a crime like this. The parents did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Her father, the suspect's father, is a Christian who often shared pictures of his dogs and his daughter, according to a review of his Facebook profile. The Washington Post confirmed the account as her father's by verifying its authenticity with the person who attended the school with him and by comparing the page's contents to public records.

But there's one post from August that has attracted more scrutiny than others in that a photo appears to show the suspect wielding a gun and taking aim at a firing range. So obviously this means that the left is going to focus in on gun control as the chief issue here. But...

It seems to me that there is a bigger issue here, and that is family turmoil. I know these are the issues that we are not supposed to discuss in American life. We are supposed to believe in these sort of libertarian social ethos that says that when parents have a child and they break up for their own well-being and for the preservation of their own happiness, that this has no impact on children whatsoever. And this has been a lie since it started to be told in the 1950s and 60s in the United States. The divorce rate in the

In those days, significantly lower, obviously, than the divorce rate today. The divorce rate today in the United States, about half of all marriages end in divorce. That does not mean that half of all married people end up divorced. There are many people who will

divorce and remarry multiple times. However, according to the Washington Post's review of court records, the suspect's parents first married in 2011, about two years after she was born. By the way, this is always a bad predictor of exactly how long a marriage is going to last. Living together before marriage, all social science demonstrates, is a very, very bad idea because it shows that people were not willing to make the commitment before they had a child, before they got married.

Marriage should be the predicate to sleeping together and then having children. I know these are old fashioned ideas, but they existed for a reason. And I think that what we are now experiencing in the West is a new understanding that maybe the old ideas, those things that we didn't understand and so we just uprooted them. Many of those things were there for a reason. Many of those social institutions existed the way they did for a reason. Maybe, for example, the focus on not sleeping together until you were married.

That focus, which was a focus for all of the West and indeed most civilizations for all of human history. Maybe that was actually a smart idea because it channeled these sexual passions into family building. It meant that a man, for example, had to give up his wayward ways and make a commitment to a woman before getting one of the things that he wanted out of the relationship with the woman. And it meant that a woman would have to be pretty discriminating about just who she chose to have sex with because it might result in a child.

Again, that was not an evil of the system. Maybe that was a good of the system. Because it turns out the opposite has been quite bad for the West in general. And I mean declining birth rates. I mean unhappy families. I mean broken families. All of that has not exactly been a boon to the West as a general matter. Despite all of the left's promises that a libertarian sexual ethos would make everybody happier, there is literally zero evidence that this is the case. Zero. Not some. Zero.

The general happiness surveys across the West have been showing a radical decline since the 1970s, particularly among women who are supposed to be the people most liberated by the new sexual ethos. In this particular case, the mother of the shooter had been previously married and divorced. She had another daughter with a different man to whom she was never married. Court records indicate that this girl had other permanent legal guardians. The half-sister is now 20.

So the suspect's parents divorced for the first time in 2014, agreeing to joint legal custody of their shared daughter, but specifying she would live primarily with her mom. The couple then remarried in 2017 and then divorced again in 2020, again agreeing to share custody. But this time, the shooter's time was spent more evenly between them. She would spend two days with dad and two with mom and then three more with dad before reversing the schedule the following week. Then the couple remarried once more,

But by April 2021, they were petitioning for a third divorce. The judge granted it, but noted, quote, parties were admonished concerning remarriage, like stop doing this. After seeking mediation to determine custody of the suspect, they agreed in July 2022 they would share legal custody, but that the girl would now mostly live with her father. By this time, unsurprisingly, the suspect had been enrolled in therapy, which was supposed to help guide decisions about which parents should spend weekends with, according to records.

The custody papers show that the parents were on cordial terms. Quote, the parents report a generally positive co-parenting relationship and will continue to communicate with one another by text messages and phone conversations. Okay, let's be real about that. That is not a thing. Okay, it doesn't matter if mommy and daddy get along when they're not living together. The thing that matters is the impact on the child. And this is what happens when you substitute the actual value of marriage for a sort of transitory perception of passion and romance.

Marriage is not, in fact, built predominantly on feelings. It is predominantly built on duty. And I know this is a strange idea to so many people who are living in the postmodern West. But again, the reality of the world is that marriage was built on commitment.

Marriage itself is an institution that requires fealty to the institution, not merely to the other person who is part of the institution. This bizarre notion that marriage was supposed to be about sort of the formalization of romantic love as opposed to a shared value system that was capable of building the next generation. That is a wrong idea. And it has been a mistake for the West to embrace that idea. I mean, romance isn't a part of marriage. Of course, romance is an enormous part of marriage.

But it is not the chiefly important part of marriage. When children become secondary as opposed to the primary purpose, not only is marriage defeated, the children are defeated.

This, again, I don't know when this idea took hold in the West. It started to take hold probably during the Romantic period in the 19th century. But it turns out that human biology sort of thwarted the plans of romantic love to overcome the institution of marriage. The institution, like all institutions built by civilization, were built by human beings in order to channel human passions. And then they were made sacred.

by human beings or by nature's God in order, again, to civilize the passions of human beings. Human beings have all sorts of passions and we build entire civilizations in order to channel those passions in positive directions. Obviously, one of the most fervent passions that people have, one of the most important passions they have is the passion for sexual relationships. It's very powerful. It can also be incredibly destructive. This is why marriage is such an important institution.

channeling that institution toward the production and rearing of children, as opposed to simply leaving little boys and girls all over the landscape without proper mothers and fathers in functioning households. By the way, treating women like trash in a sort of free love system, which is how women currently feel. They feel they are treated like trash by men.

And many of the men who are looking at the system say, well, hold up, we're a consensual system, so what's the problem? The answer is that the consent that women are typically looking for is not merely sexual consent. It is a consent to a long-term relationship that is meaningful, spiritual, and purposeful. And when you have a society that lacks all of these things, what you end up with is tremendous human suffering, true human suffering. And so these sort of free divorce situations

Easy living. Get back together. Break up. Get back together. Break up. Find new partners. And the kids will just be fine because, you know, kids can take it. No, you can take it. You're the adult. You're the adult. Is this the parents' fault? Well, given the fact that they were living the way they lived, it certainly is not not their fault. If you treat your children like a bizarre form of chattel,

shuttling them between parent and parent because you want to live your best life. Guess what? Once you have kids, you are no longer first priority. You're not even second priority. You're now third priority as a father. First priority goes kids. Okay. And then my wife and then myself, maybe, but I come, I may come further down on the list than that because when you build a family, it is all about the next generation. And when we forget that it is a serious problem.

Now, we won't have these types of conversations about this particular school shooting or the school shooter. We won't have the conversation that suggests, for example, a heavy connection between children of divorce and tremendous acts of violence. It turns out that a disproportionate number of people who go and commit acts like this are children of broken homes. And it turns out that a disproportionate number of people who commit violent crimes are actually products of homes that are not intact.

Again, longstanding social science data to back all of this. Delinquency, for example, is radically increased when there's no father in the home. Crime, radically increased. Teenage pregnancy, radically increased. This is what happens when, as a society, you decide that it is very important to disengage from the institutions of civilization that channel the passions and instead just humor those passions and let everything else be left by the wayside.

These are the conversations that need to be had. And I think that these are the conversations that are, in fact, beginning to be had. I think the American people are ready for a conversation, a serious conversation about what the good life looks like. These are important conversations. But here's the thing. When you're having an important conversation, you need excellent phone coverage. See what I did there? There's no shortage of flashy ads from the big wireless carriers offering the latest iPhone for free. But look a little deeper and you'll quickly realize what that actually means. To qualify, you need to trade in your phone, not just

any phone but one valued at $1,000. Then you're required to sign up for their $100 a month unlimited plan and pay that sneaky $35 activation fee on top of it all. That is a lot of money for something they're calling free. Don't fall for their marketing tricks. Pure Talk, my cell phone company, has a much better option. Get a brand new iPhone 14. That comes with all the bells and whistles you actually need. Plus, get unlimited talk, text, a generous 15 gigs of high-speed data, and mobile hotspot capability, all for just $50 a month.

How about that? You're paying half the price of what the big guys charge, and you still get a new iPhone powered by America's most dependable 5G network. Do this. Head on over to puretalk.com slash Shapiro today. Switching is simple. Plus, when you go to puretalk.com slash Shapiro, you'll get an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage. That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro for an additional 50% off your very first month. Pure Talk is America's wireless company. Go check them out right now at puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Also, did you know you spend a third of your life sleeping?

That's around 25 years of your life in bed. With numbers like that, your mattress isn't just furniture. It's an investment in your well-being, which is where Helix Sleep comes in. I never thought a mattress could make such a big difference until we actually tried Helix. What sets them apart? Well, unlike the one-size-fits-all brands, Helix offers 20 different mattress options because they understand everybody's sleep needs are unique. It all starts with their Sleep Quiz, a game-changer for finding a perfect match.

When I mentioned my struggle with lower back pain on softer mattresses, they recommended a medium firm option. And the result is I'm sleeping much better. Looking for that cloud-like feeling? You should try the Lux. Want the ultimate sleep experience? Go for the Elite. You need extra support? The Helix Plus will cover you. And forget those mattress store visits. Helix will deliver right to your door. Helix is so confident in their product.

They give you 100 nights to try it out. It's over three months to test your mattress in the real world. Plus, every mattress comes with a 10 to 15-year warranty. So if you'd like to sleep as soundly as I do, head on over to helixsleep.com slash Ben and take that sleep quiz. Plus, Helix is offering up to 20% off site-wide and two free dream pillows with any mattress purchase. That's correct. Just go to helixsleep.com slash Ben for 20% off. That's helixsleep.com slash Ben with Helix. Better sleep starts right now. There's a lot of talk in politics these days about the common good.

Now, what do we all hold together? What are the sacred things? What are the things that ought to be put beyond political debate? The thing that used to be certainly beyond political debate for pretty much everybody was the idea that family comes first, that family is the most important thing. It is the most important social institution. That has now been put to the side.

And the results have been quite terrible. I've mentioned him before, but the sociologist and philosopher Robert Nisbet, he wrote a great book called The Twilight of Authority. This is back, I believe, in the 1950s. And in it, he talks about the importance of these social institutions and what happens when you break them down. And here's what he writes. He says, more than any other social scientist, it was Frederick LaPley in the last century who first saw clearly and systematically the close relation between what he called the STEM family and the general creative prosperity of the surrounding social order.

The stem family, Lepley found, among the Jews, ancient Greeks, pre-imperial Romans, and most of the European peoples prior to the advent of the national state, and its increasingly atomizing effect upon kindred, clan, and household. It was the type of family, Lepley observed, that combined communality and opportunity for individual expression in a way that avoided the corporatism of the ancient patriarchal type of family on the one hand, and the egoistic particularism of modernity on the other. So the stem family respected individuals within the family so long as they all...

abided by the rules. And that was different from sort of the ancient patriarchal family where everybody just worked for the patriarch or from the radical individualism of modernity. LaPley thought revival of the family for purposes of both mutual aid and individual enterprise in all spheres, the sovereign need of Western Europe that was fast becoming straitjacketed by national centralization and bureaucracy.

Every great age and every great people LaPley discovered is characterized at bottom by the strength of the kinship principle. We can, he argued, use the family as an almost infallible touchstone of the material and cultural prosperity of a people.

When the family is strong, closely linked with private property, treated as the essential context of education in society, and its sanctity recognized by law and custom, the probability is extremely high that we shall find the rest of the social order characterized by that subtle but puissant fusion of stability and individual mobility, which is the hallmark of great ages.

I believe that by common assent, the Greeks, Jews, and Chinese are the three most creative peoples in history of whom we have substantial record, observing all of these people, especially during periods of their greatest creative fertility, the immense strength of the family tie. Family yet remains the greatest single element of a creative culture that is so far as social contexts are concerned.

So what exactly does that family look like? What does marriage look like? As Nisbet says, let us have no nonsense about love and unremitting devotion among the most evanescent and rare qualities surely in the total picture of the family that history reveals. For paradoxical as it may seem, it is not love, least of all sexual passion, that the family has been built around historically, but rather duty and obligation.

These are words that have fallen out of favor, duty and obligation. But liberty springs from duty and obligation because you know that if your family owes a duty to you and you owe duties to your family, then you are free to do so many things. You are free to fly because you know that you have a support system in your family and you are purposeful because you have a duty to actually act on behalf of your family. And when those things are deprived of children, when those things go away, disaster occurs.

Now, again, people want to look at the sort of surface level arguments when it comes to terrible events like what happened in Wisconsin. Oh, what do we do to get rid of guns? The reality is in this particular case, the suspect used a handgun, not a long gun, and obtained the gun presumably illegally because she was 15. Gun laws ain't going to fix that. Some people are going to want to look at mental illness. Okay, well, maybe this is a mental illness problem, or maybe, in fact, this is something much deeper and much more problematic. And this is the most

spectacular symptom of a far graver disease that has afflicted the body politic. And again, is responsible for a wide variety of symptoms from low fertility rates to high divorce rates to lack of social mobility. It turns out that social mobility is very much attached to your ability generation on generation to make lives better within your family.

My grandparents did better than my great grandparents. My parents did better than my grandparents. And my family is doing better than my parents. That is perfectly normal in the context of a stable familial situation. It is not normal in broken situations.

Now, again, that is not a rip on people who have gotten divorced. This is not a rip on people who have made mistakes, had children out of wedlock. It's not a rip on those people. It is a recommendation that society must have a standard, uphold the standard and forward that standard in order to have more of the thing. If you want more of a thing, you have to subsidize it. You have to talk about its importance. You have to culturally prop it up. Marriage doesn't exist in a vacuum. As an institution, it requires societal approval and support.

And as those supports are removed, everything collapses. And that is what you're watching right now. Now, again, I think that we are in the middle of what could be a cultural renaissance. The reason I say that is because I think the American people are tired of all this. I think that the libertarian sexual ethos that has been basically the only promise kept by the Democrats in the 1960s. So the Democrats in the 1960s promised that a gigantic, overweening, bureaucratic, centralized government

Sure, it was going to control huge elements of your life. Sure, it was going to cost oodles of money. Sure, it was going to completely rejigger the entire social relation between people and the government. But what you would get in compensation for all of those things, for economic stagnation, for higher crime rates, for worse poverty, what you were going to get in compensation for bigger government interventionism was that you'd be able to have sex with whomever you wanted without any sort of consequence.

And it turns out that was a bad promise. It was true you could do that, but it turns out that is not what human beings are built for. They're not built for that thing. That thing does not make people happy. And what people really are yearning for is the same thing that people have always yearned for, that kinship principle, to be with their family, in their home, to raise their children so that their children will have healthy children.

to be able to build familial wealth over the course of generations, to be able to sit on the porch when you're 80 years old with your grandkids playing in the yard, knowing that you've lived a good, dutiful, purposeful life and that you will continue to give a contribution to future generations. That is the thing that people actually, actually want.

And has been clawed away at by a transgressive social ethos that suggests that the only thing that matters is your feeling temporarily in the moment. I think that's starting to go away. And I think the symptoms of, again, this cultural renaissance are being felt everywhere. First, in kind of small sprigs of growth. So to take what appears to be a perfectly anodyne example, Disney is now pulling a transgender storyline from its new series, Win or Lose. Again, very small kind of sprig of grass coming up through the snow here.

But it is indicative of the change in social winds in the United States. People are done with this. People are done with left-wing social policy, which suggests that the key element of being a human being is how you feel about your own gender, sexuality, or who you want to screw. And they certainly don't want that taught to their kids. And here's the reality. All the arguments that are currently being had about kids will be had about adults. And they should be had about adults. Because many of the arguments that are had with regard to, say, transgendering the children,

Those are arguments really not just about what children should be forced to undergo by their parents or by perverse doctors. The real underlying argument to all this is that transgender medicine, for example, is wrong and bad for human beings. And even for adults who have gender dysphoria, this is not a solution to their problems. And again, consent is not the end of the story.

If I consent to have my arm cut off, that does not mean that a doctor should cut my arm off. And if someone consents to have their penis cut off, that should not be a consent that actually measures. And the attempt to sort of relegate that conversation to the kids is an easy political win. But that's not the real conversation that needs to be had. The real conversation that needs to be had in a lot of these social spheres is what we think is good more generally. Again, that's not that's going to differ across the country. That doesn't mean the federal government ought to be involved in everything.

In a very diverse country with a lot of different viewpoints, presumably California is going to be ruled and reigned differently than Florida or Alabama or Mississippi or even New York.

However, there is a wind of change that is blowing. According to the New York Times, Pixar, a division of Walt Disney Studios, removed a transgender storyline from its animated series Win or Lose, which is set to start streaming in February. The series follows a middle school co-ed softball team in the week leading up to the championship game. Each episode is told from the perspective of a different character. The character will remain in the show, Disney said, but a few lines of dialogue focused on her gender, a plot point that appeared near the end of the eight episode series, have been edited out.

Disney put out a statement, quote, when it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timelines. Hey, that is a that is a good start. As we know from Chris Rufo's excellent reporting, Disney itself, the highest levels of the animation studio particularly, have been very much involved in mainlining a bunch of LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign ideology into kids programing.

Because it is, in fact, a recruitment mechanism for an ideology. That is what it is for. And now Disney is realizing that that is a loser. Parents don't want their kids taught this stuff.

Parents do not want their kids taught this stuff. But I think this is part of a broader cultural revelation that maybe, maybe a system of thought that puts your own sexual desire at the center of your being as the only thing that matters. I'm not even talking about sexual orientation here. I'm just saying that anything that suggests that the sexual passions are the chief motivation in life that matters.

And satisfying those feelings should be the purpose of your life is insufficient to build a civilization and is bad for the community at large. And by the way, is largely bad for individuals as well. That I think is coming to fruition right now. And I think you're seeing that in Disney backing off of all of this.

Because Disney is beginning to realize that the American people are not in favor of this sort of radicalism. That the bargain that the left has been trying to draw since the 1960s that substitutes individual sexual libertarianism in favor of a family ethos has been a failure. And people are feeling...

That failure. The American people are not in favor of this sort of radical leftism because the radical left is disconnected from reality. One of those disconnects, the radical left does not understand the profound unshakable bond between the Christian and Jewish communities in the United States. While the secular left pushes their anti-religious agenda, Christians and Jews have stood together defending our shared values and religious liberties. That's why I'm proud to partner with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. For over 40 years, they've been doing something remarkable, building bridges between our communities through faith, shared values, and mutual respect.

And the fellowship doesn't just talk, they act. Right now, they're on the ground providing real help to vulnerable Jewish families and elderly around the globe. We're talking about food, medical care, emergency assistance, and security to people who need it most. I can tell you, this organization represents exactly what makes our line so powerful. It's about Christians and Jews coming together to do what our faiths command, helping those in need. If you want to be part of this amazing mission, visit benforthefellowship.org. That is benforthefellowship.org. Your support makes a real difference.

in people's lives, tons of people still suffering over in the Holy Land, people who are living in hotels still because they haven't been able to go back home. People whose family members have been wounded during this war, people whose family members have been killed. Head on over to benforthefellowship.org to help support them, benforthefellowship.org. God bless and thank you. Also, this Christmas, as we celebrate the gift of life, you have an opportunity to share that same gift

with a mother and her baby. Imagine a young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, feeling alone and unsure of what to do. She's searching for hope. This is where Preborn Ministries comes in. When Valeria found out she was pregnant, she was beyond terrified. She'd often dreamt of being a young mom, but as a Christian and single, she now felt overwhelmed by shame and was seriously considering abortion. Valeria began the search for an abortion. It was upon that search

She called a nurse at a pre-born at network clinic who walked her through her options, including the true reality of ending a baby's life with the abortion pill. When she heard that, she knew she couldn't end her child's life. Valeria chose life. Now she has a beautiful little girl. This Christmas for just 28 bucks, you can help save a life. And thanks to a special matching grant, your gift is doubled. Just 28 bucks provides one ultrasound. 140 bucks sponsors five. That means your $140 gift becomes $280, potentially helping 10 moms and their unborn children. To donate, dial pound 250, saybaby.com.

That's pound 250, baby, or visit preborn.com slash Ben. All gifts are tax deductible. Preborn has a four-star charity rating, preborn.com slash Ben. Now over in Canada, Pierre Pelliev, who is going to be the prime minister of Canada, he's a tremendous politician, member of the Conservative Party in Canada. They're just awaiting a new election. As we discussed yesterday on the program, the reality is that when it comes to Canada,

Justin Trudeau is in almost the single digits in terms of approval rating. He is going to resign at some point. The only question is whether that is going to trigger a new election. Poliev, if the election were held today, would easily be prime minister, probably with the largest conservative majority of any Western country right now. There's a reason for that. And the reason for that is because he's speaking in precisely these terms that the dream is family, house, dog, being

being able to earn, make sure that your kids have more wealth than your parents gave you. These are the dreams, whether it's the Canadian dream or the American dream, that's the dream. That's the thing people are seeking.

That is a very different dream from I get to screw whoever I want without any consequence and society needs to pay for it. That is not the dream. That was never the Canadian dream. That was never the American dream. That was never the Western dream. And in fact, those two dreams are in direct opposition to one another. And that is not an argument for government regulation of personal sexual relationships, for example. Maybe it is on a local level, but it is certainly not on a sort of broad level. But as a matter of morality and societal directionality,

The direction needs to be directed toward family and away from radical sexual individualism as the ethos, as the ethos. Here's Pierre Poliev. I met another guy at the Labrat Brewery a few days ago, and you can watch the video of me talking with him. He walked up to me and he said, I have three jobs and I can't make it. We're renting. We have no hope. We've given up on ever owning a home. We're renting. We can barely make it. And he said to me, I feel ashamed when I talk to my kids about

Because they ask me why I'm never around and why we can never have a house. And I feel like a failure. But he didn't fail. He has been failed. He has been robbed of the promise of Canada. It was a very simple promise that if you worked hard, you got a good life. Now, it wasn't fancy or extravagant, but you got a house with a yard where you could have kids playing safely.

And you could have a nice dog that you could afford to feed along with the kids and your kids could play safely in the streets. That was the promise. Now, politicians break promises all the time. But you know what was bad about this promise? This promise didn't belong to this prime minister. It wasn't his promise to break. It belonged to all of us. And that is exactly right now.

You could hear that same speech coming out of the mouth of somebody on the left. But people on the left will then say it's the government's job to provide you the house, the dog, and the wealth. And you have no obligations. That's not what Polio is saying. He is saying that the dream is that if you act responsibly and dutifully, you will get ahead in the West.

And that is the dream. And here's the thing. All you have to do is unchain the people. That's all you have to do. All you have to do is encourage them to act in a socially responsible fashion, to actually build families. And all this sort of bizarre anti-woman hatred that you see from a reactionary right online sometimes that says, well, you know, what do you owe to women? The answer that men owe to women is you owe it to them to be good husbands and good fathers. And that is a direct response to the radical insanity of

of the RadFemLeft, which suggests, what do women owe to men? They owe it to men to be good wives and good mothers. These things are owed to one another. And on the basis of those mutual duties, you build a family. On the basis of those families, you build an entire civilization. All that has to be done, once you have family structures that are actually intact, is let them alone to thrive. Leave them alone. Let them actually do the things that families do, take care of one another.

There's a lot of statistics demonstrating that when men get married, they start to earn more. When they have kids, they start to earn even more. Why? Because they feel a greater duty to go and work because now they're doing it on behalf of something that matters and is meaningful. What are the things in our society matter and are meaningful? Well, it feels like for a long time,

The answer is not much. For a long time in the United States, because we are very rich and we're very privileged and because God blessed us with borders that are two oceans, Mexicans and Canadians, and an incredibly rich continent that provides all of our needs, that because of all of that, the duties can sort of be put off to the side and all we need are our rights. But the reality is the duties and the rights are two sides of the same exact coin. You have a right to go and earn because you're earning on behalf of your family.

You have a right to go out and thrive, and in fact, a duty to go out and thrive, because you're doing so on behalf of your family and your community and your civilization. All that has to be done, guarantee private property rights, forward the family, forward the community. These are not particularly difficult things to do. Canada has done them wrong. Why? Well, because even if you suggest this,

This sort of naive suggestion that many members of the left and the right actually want the same thing. They want the families with the dog and the house and the kids. I don't think that's true anymore, but let's assume that that's the baseline. The problem with left-wing solutions to this problem or interventionist government solutions to this problem, once the government starts to intervene, once the government starts to sign the checks, once the government starts to substitute for the actual function that family was supposed to perform, families wither and die. The intermediate social institutions provided by things like church

that actually instilled community and rules and excellent social attributes on people, those go away. So to take a quick example, when it comes to the government and churches. So it used to be that if you had a problem in your life, so you lost your job,

If you're a member of a church, then the church would help take care of you. This is still true, by the way, in a lot of religious communities. It's true in my religious community. If somebody in our community loses a job, the first thing that happens, there's now a meal train. That meal train is set up to make sure that the kids and the family are fed.

The next thing that happens, everybody starts passing around the resume. Do we know a job for this person? If we don't know a job for this person, can we create a job for this person so they can support their own family? Because the highest form of charity in Jewish faith, I would assume in other faiths as well, is giving somebody a job. So go out and find them a job. In the meantime, in order for that person to receive, they know they're receiving from people that they are neighbors with.

And they don't feel amazing about that because it turns out that receiving charity is not, in fact, a wonderful thing for the person who's the recipient. Very often, it's very difficult. And it should be difficult, not in the sense that it should be hard to get. It should be difficult emotionally. And it is for most people because you know that you're taking from somebody else and you don't want to be doing that. And so you feel you owe it back to the community to actually do the hard work, to go out and look for a job, for example, to live by the rules of the community.

The duties and the entitlements are two sides of the same exact coin when it comes to, for example, a church or a synagogue community that is thriving. When the government steps in and just starts signing checks, the entitlements remain, but the duties disappear. And so what you end up with is an entitled people. And it breaks apart families. It makes things worse. That's the story of the welfare state created in the United States since the 1960s. It is not a coincidence that the populations most likely to receive welfare are also the populations with the highest levels of family dysfunction and family breakup.

That's not a coincidence at all because, again, the government is substituting itself for a functioning system that was not created particularly by man. It was an evolutionary system evolved and then instituted by God, if you're a religious person, in order to form a functional civilization. So, I'm probably just talking about the dream. The dream can only be accomplished

By families allowed to live free, to keep their property, to live without the heavy hand of government dictating every aspect of how they raise their children. Thriving communities that are allowed to make moves together communally. These are the things that matter. And when the government starts to inject itself, bad things happen. By the way, this is true across the board.

There's been a lot of debate, for example, in the United States over the health care system, right? What will community, how do you take care of the people who are unhealthy? So again, the old style for most of human history was your family took care of you, your community took care of you. When somebody got sick, if somebody didn't have the money, they'd go out and they'd go to their community members and those community members would do their best to help out. Now we scoff at that. Oh, no, no, no. That's what government is for. The problem is government can't do the job. Government is not capable of doing that job. As exhibit A, I present to you Canada. Canada.

So Canada, which is something that the left in the United States, the Canadian healthcare system, which is effectively a national healthcare system like Great Britain, it's got some problems. Here's a story out of Manitoba today. Quote, a Manitoba woman had her right leg amputated after complications following a knee replacement surgery two months earlier.

Roseanne Milburn, 61, went ahead with the scheduled amputation last Friday after weeks of complications stemming from post-surgery infection. In late November, a surgeon at Winnipeg's Health Sciences Center began removing dead tissue from her right knee with the intention of stitching her up later that day after she was seen by an orthopedic surgeon at Concordia Hospital. She was sent to Concordia. She couldn't be transferred back to HSC because there wasn't a bed available for the specialist to finish the procedure. Instead, she spent eight days languishing at Concordia with a painful open wound.

Once she finally got to HSE, Milburn went under the knife for another infection. Due to the long delay in stitching up the wound, she said her leg was not salvageable. Shared Health, the entity that oversees healthcare delivery in Manitoba, that'd be a government entity, said last week it was up to Milburn to choose a preferred treatment option. She stressed in interviews with CBC News, the other choice involving multiple surgeries and the chance her leg would still be amputated didn't make sense. So in other words, they opened up her leg,

Because of the shortages in the health care system in Canada, she sat there for eight days without sewing it up. And then they had to amputate her leg. This is government also is not good at even the things that it promises to be good at. We need more evolved systems of human interaction, historically evolved systems, marriage, church, community, intermediate institutions of society that make it work.

And I think it's about time for us to get back to all those things. And I think that's part of what's happening in the West. Those things are fragile. And once they're broken, it's very hard to put them back together. But they do have to be put back together.

All righty, in just one moment, we'll get to Joe Biden heading for the exits. First, at The Daily Wire, when we say join us in the fight, these are not empty words. These are real battles that affect the lives of every American every day. We took the Biden administration's unconstitutional vax mandate straight to the Supreme Court, and we won. The groundbreaking documentary, What Is Woman?, changed the national conversation forever. A major part of that fight is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. Then we took on the box office with Am I Racist?, and Americans showed up in record numbers, making it the number one documentary of the decade, despite Hollywood pretending it doesn't exist.

At The Daily Wire, we fight the left and we build the future and we need you to help us. Every dollar you invest goes directly back into these battles. Join Daily Wire Plus today or give the gift of Daily Wire Plus this Christmas for 40% off. Head on over to dailywire.com right now. Meanwhile, the American Democratic Party is searching for answers in the aftermath of a shellacking at the voting booth.

Joe Biden is now heading for the exit. I mean, that's not a shock because, again, he's been absent for pretty much, what, since June, July? He's just been gone. The fact that he's still the acting president of the United States is a disgrace. It's a disgrace to the country. The fact that Democrats have left him in office knowing that he is full-scale senile is insane. And it's one of the reasons, by the way, why the American people don't trust the Democrats. Whenever Democrats say Donald Trump is telling the biggest lies, you guys...

are still telling the lie that Joe Biden is capable of being president. You're still telling that lie after you took him out of his own nomination.

It's unbelievable. According to The New York Times, this is the twilight of Mr. Biden's presidency, the final days of the final chapter of an epic half century political journey that has had more than its share of twists and turns. Time is catching up with Mr. Biden. Oh, is it? Thanks for noticing, New York Times. He looks a little older and a little slower with each passing day. Aides say he remains plenty sharp in the situation room, calling world leaders to broker a ceasefire in Lebanon or deal with the chaos of Syria's rebellion.

But it's hard to imagine that he seriously thought he could do the world's most stressful job for another four years. It's funny, the New York Times will now say this.

For a while, it was like, no, how dare you say this? How dare you? That does not make it any easier as Mr. Biden heads toward the exit. Nothing that has happened since he was forced to drop out of the race in July has made that decision look wrong. Yet Donald Trump's victory over Vice President Kamala Harris has been interpreted as a repudiation of Mr. Biden. It stung. It still stings. But unlike Mr. Trump four years ago, this president accepts that he's a hero. He's a hero, according to The New York Times.

Wow. That's definitely a presidential first. He visited...

The Amazon forest. Good for him. The reason I mention this is because the Democratic Party is searching for a future and they don't appear to have much of one. Kamala Harris says she's still not going to go away, by the way. Kamala Harris, after losing to Donald Trump, after being handed the nomination by her party and a billion and a half dollars in campaign financing, she says she's not going away. She's still wandering the landscape, babbling nonsensically. Here she was yesterday in Maryland, babbling like a crazy person. The true test of our commitment is

is whether in the face of an obstacle, do we throw up our hands or do we roll up our sleeves? And as we approach... And I ask you to remember the context in which you exist. Yeah, I did that. Uh-huh.

Oh, the crazed laughter. The context. I ask you to remember the context. It's going to be so pleasant not having to listen to her voice for another four years. Seriously, can you imagine? We didn't just dodge a bullet, by the way. Donald Trump dodged an actual physical bullet. The American people dodged a nuclear missile.

in this in a possible Harris administration. Truly incredible. But the Democrats are still trying to figure out exactly which direction they go. So one of the big problems for the Democrats in the aftermath of the Joe Biden, Kamala Harris combined defeat, because remember, they were both candidates in this election cycle, which is insane. Which way do they go? Do they split to the left or do they try to tack back to the center, recognizing that they've lost the trust of the American people so badly that Donald Trump won reelection in a historic comeback for the ages?

Well, it appears that some of them would like to avoid tacking all the way to the left. According to Axios, House Democrats on Tuesday elected Representative Jerry Connolly of Virginia as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. According to multiple lawmakers familiar with the matter, Connolly is 74 and he defeated 35 year old Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, withstanding a generational revolt and saw several of Democrats subterranean committee leaders pushed out of their roles.

Ocasio-Cortez also lost a vote for the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Monday. Connolly defeated AOC 131 to 84. He had the backing of several veteran lawmakers, including former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who stepped into the frame to basically say, I don't want anybody like AOC at the head of the oversight committee. The role came open after current oversight ranking member Jamie Raskin opted to run for the top Democratic spot on the Judiciary Committee.

Now, I know they're trying to play Jamie Raskin as though Jamie Raskin is sort of a young gun inside the Democratic Party. But Jamie Raskin is 62 years old, so he is not one of the young guns inside the Democratic Party. So the reality is that one of the things that the upper echelons of the Democratic Party are trying to avoid is a sort of McGovernite journey into the unknown. Progressives are absolutely beside themselves because they see AOC as the future leader. She, of course, is going to be old enough to run for president in the next election cycle.

Joy Reid was beside herself. Here was Joy, again, the least joyful person ever to be named Joy, angry at the Democratic gerontocracy.

What is about this? This gerontocracy seems like it's intractable. And I recall that when President Obama was elected, he kind of pushed aside the DNC and created his own organization because I think there's a frustration with the sort of creaky way the DNC operates. Jamie, God bless him, couldn't really change it. But it is run by donors and consultants and people who are locked into the old ways of doing things. They want to advertise on TV. And look, I'm

for TV. OK, I love TV. We work on TV, but they don't want to do the sort of new world media. Yeah. Right. But that an AOC is so good at. Again, the battle for the Democratic left is very much alive. Dan Pfeiffer, an Obama boy, he says valuing seniority over political and messaging chops is exactly how Democrats got into this mess in the first place. And so, again, the idea here is that they need to put in place a bunch of wild progressives. So that would include Chris Hayes,

Rachel Maddow's male doppelganger, who's ripping older Democrats for being unwilling to step aside. It feels like a moment of genuine madness. And look, no one wants to think about their own mortality. I sure as heck don't. There are lots of people who live very long, active lives, well into their 80s, 90s even. John Paul Stevens lived years after he retired from the court at the age of 90. But as a general matter, this is a very risky undertaking for everyone.

And Democrats are not taking this issue seriously, despite everything that's happened, but they need to. Again, the Democratic Party, this is going to be a massive internal battle. And it'll be fascinating to see how it plays out over the course of the next few years. Of course, it is going to be replete with intersectional arguments as well. Here is a former Kamala Harris consultant named Delencia Johnson on MSNBC talking about how the party must be led by young females of color. You know, it's also disappointing that the DNC, like the people that are running to lead the DNC,

are all white men where are and the thing is i think about what the voter who was ride or die for kamala harris looked like it looked like the people at this table it looked like aoc latinas voted with her it was latino men but so the reality is you're not bringing to the table the people who showed you how to win because they voted for her they were willing to ride with her you're chasing republican voters who no matter what trump does are going to vote for trump it doesn't matter what he does listen the party should be led to your point by young women of color

Right. Because you want to win of color are the reasons that Democrats do actually have some of these wins. And we know how to communicate in ways that reach that more moderate voter, but also that progressive voter, because we talk about the issues that people care about, the kitchen table issues that Democrats like to talk about. But we're able to talk about those issues in an intersectional way that reaches more people. OK, if you're able to talk in an intersectional way, you're not able to talk about those issues. That's just the reality. Kamala Harris tried this.

gigantic historic fail. We'll get to more on this in a second. But first, as a potential home buyer, you've likely been waiting on the sidelines through some challenging times. Between the pandemic, inflation, limited housing inventory, and rising interest rates, the real estate market has been very unpredictable. But here's the good news. Conditions are improving. It's worth considering making a move now before the traditional spring surge brings more competition and potentially higher prices.

You might be thinking, Ben, isn't winter a terrible time to buy with the holidays? Actually, winter can be a smart time to enter the market. There are typically fewer bidding wars. That means you may have more negotiating power and better opportunities to find good deals. Here's how you get started. Go to ChurchillMortgage.com slash Shapiro. Churchill Mortgage is the company I trust to help you. I've met with the president of Churchill. They are committed to finding the right loan for your financial situation. They want to make sure they do right by you. Churchill gives you additional advantages as a buyer.

including a $10,000 seller guarantee Churchill will pay for. They even have programs to help you compete with cash offers. With rates trending down, this could be your moment. ChurchillMortgage.com slash Shapiro. Tell your loan officer I sent you, you'll be in good hands. This is a paid advertisement. Homebuyer Edge and Seller Guarantee are available for qualifying borrowers in select loan types only, not available in all states or locations. NMLS ID 1591, MLSConsumerAccess.org, Equal Housing Lender, 1749 Mallory Lane, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027.

Meanwhile, it's not as though everything is hunky-dory on the other side of the aisle. Lot, a lot of passions being stirred by a debate over a bipartisan deal on Tuesday to keep the government funded through mid-March and provide more than $100 billion in relief to disaster victims and farmers, according to the Wall Street Journal. But a lot of House Republicans are rightly ticked off at what is just another pork bill. Now, let us be real about these sorts of

pork bills. Yes, you can strip out some of the pork. When Donald Trump is president, you'll have a better opportunity to strip out some of the pork. It is also true that sort of this pork barrel rolling is sort of, if you vote for a billion bucks for my constituency, I'll vote for a billion bucks for your constituency. This is the way that things get done in a very closely divided Congress. The reality is that Republicans basically have no votes to spare. They drop two, three votes and they ain't got a bill. And that's just a reality of the situation. The true systemic problem

The spending structure that needs to change is not going to be done by paring around the edges, by cutting a billion bucks here, a billion bucks there. Again, that's not to say that this bill should pass as currently stated. In the best of all possible worlds, I think that the vast majority of the spending would never occur. It also happens to be the case that that's not going to happen. And you know who I've noticed is not actually signing into chat to come out against this bill as of yet is President Trump.

President Trump does not want a government shutdown on the table when he comes into office. He would prefer the government be at least funded through March, and then he can do his own deals with Republicans and try to use the power of his bully pulpit to get wavering Republicans to sign on to bills.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the legislation was released just days ahead of Friday's deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown while keeping federal operations running for several months. The bipartisan proposal also includes a slew of other measures ranging from funding the rebuilding of Baltimore's collapse of Francis Scott Key Bridge to expanding the sale of ethanol to limiting some investments in China. The proposal would extend current government funding until March 14th, punting until the next Congress decisions on how much money to allocate to each federal agency for the remainder of the fiscal year.

Now, again, there's a ton of pork in this thing. It is a almost 1,600-page package that no one is going to read, except for Vivek Ramaswamy, who says he's actually going to read the thing, go through it for pork, which is fantastic. It's why he exists over at Doge.

Speaker Johnson has aimed to give members roughly 72 hours to review bills. He said that'd be unlikely this time. And again, there's a lot of Republican heartburn over this. And that Republican heartburn is totally appropriate. It is also worthwhile noticing, as I say, the systemic drivers of America's massive debt are not allocations to the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which again, I don't even think should be federally funded. That is a state bridge. But let's be real about this. This is not where the spending problem generally exists.

And we will see just how sanguine Republicans are about big spending when Donald Trump enters office. My guess is pretty sanguine. Speaker Johnson says we're working around the clock to get a continuing resolution done. Again, Donald Trump does not want a government shutdown going into his presidency. He does not.

We've been working around the clock to get the CR done. It was intended to be, and it was until recent days, a very simple, very clean CR, a stopgap funding measure to get us into next year when we have unified government under the Republican Party.

uh... but a couple of intervening things have occurred we had as you say uh... as we describe the max of god we had these massive hurricanes if you know uh... in the late fall helene and milton and other disasters we have to make sure that the americans who were devastated by these hurricanes get the relief they need so we are adding to this a disaster relief package and that's critically important also important is of the devastation that is uh... this being faced by our farming community uh...

The agriculture sector has really struggled. They've had effectively three lost years, and commodity prices are a bit of a mess, and you've got input costs that are skyrocketed because of Bidenomics. You put all those factors together, droughts and all the other conditions, and you have a lot of small family farms and ranches and people who support them.

apply the food for the country in dire straits right now. And so Congress recognizes that need, and so we've had to add a little bit to that as well. So what would have been a very skinny, very simple, clean CR has been added. These other pieces have been added to it and a couple of things that are related to all that.

And I agree with every critique of this bill. Also, the bill is going to have to pass because if you want the government funded, when Donald Trump comes into office, something's going to have to pass. And again, I think that there's a tendency in the commentariat to say, well, nothing should pass. You just shut everything down. The reality is that's not going to happen. The question is,

What is the strategy here? If the strategy is longer term cuts that actually mean something, you need to get to the Trump era in one piece. We're not quite there. We still have about a month until Donald Trump takes office. And that's when things are going to really start to change. Because right now, if Republicans just pass a bill with a Democratic Senate, remember, the Democrats still hold the Senate up until January and everybody gets sworn in.

If that's the case, then just nothing will get done. And Democrats will be happy to hand a government shutdown to President Trump coming into office. That is the thing they would love most going into the holiday season. So again, there's some strategy that comes into play. And there's always a question of politics. Principle versus pragmatism is always the question of politics. Ignoring that, you can do that. You'll do it at your own peril, politically speaking.

Joining me on the line is Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz. Of course, you know Alan Dershowitz from a wide variety of endeavors, but right now he's building a dream team of top legal minds across the United States to defend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Galant against false charges and politically motivated arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. He is also the author of a brand new book titled The 10 Big Anti-Israel Lies and How to Refute Them with Truth. A million copies have been printed and are going out to campuses across the country. Professor Dershowitz, great to talk to you.

Thank you. It was great to talk to you. I watched you last night. You gave a great, great speech. And I'm so proud you were once one of my students.

It's true. Going all the way back to Harvard Law School 2007. So let's talk in a second about the ICC. I first want to ask you about the news that Judge Juan Merchan in New York is not going to be waiving the charges against President Trump, these specious, ridiculous hush money charges that are trumped up out of nothing. I mean, unprecedented finding in that case. Now, what does this mean constitutionally? What should be done about it?

Well, he's gaming the system. What he's trying to do is rule against Trump, have a conviction, a jury verdict hanging over his head for four years and not let him appeal. Under New York law, you can't appeal unless there's a sentence. The sentence is the verdict. So he's trying to have it both ways. He knows that his absurd conviction would never be affirmed on appeal. There's no crime.

I've been doing this 60 years, teaching, writing, litigating. I can't figure out what the crime is. You know, Thomas Jefferson once said, for a criminal statute to be valid, it has to be so clear that a reasonable person should be able to understand it. If he reads it while running, while running, I'm sitting.

And I can't understand the case against Trump. It's an absurd case and Marshawn knows it. And so he's gaming the system by trying to prevent Trump from appealing. That's not going to work because Trump's lawyers can bring what's called a writ of mandamus to the appellate court saying, look,

They're trying to circumvent your jurisdiction. You can't have a four year conviction, a sort of Damocles with pressure by the judge. Think of this for a second. You have a state court judge holding something over the president of the United States for years, essentially saying, if you don't do what I want you to do, I will increase your sentence four years from now. That is unthinkable under the Constitution.

So meanwhile, speaking of legal wrangling, the International Criminal Court, which is a ridiculous body that is basically staffed by a bunch of dictatorial nations as well as Europeans. I may repeat myself depending on who we're talking about here. The International Criminal Court has now issued arrest warrants against the prime minister of Israel as well as the defense former defense minister of Israel, Yoav Galant.

on the predicate that they have supposedly contributed to genocide. You're putting together a legal dream team to go up against the ICC. So what are you attempting to do? Why even engage with the ICC in the first place?

Well, I think you have to engage with the ICC because they have the power to make somebody's life miserable. Bibi Ndjeno, my old friend, can't go to Canada and visit Erwin Kotler in Montreal because the Canadian government will arrest him. The Australian government will arrest him. So it's important to fight back. Just remember who the ICC did not indict. As with digging up graves, showing the poison gas being used by Assad,

Assad is a free man in Russia. He has never been indicted by the ICC. Now, the ICC claims, well, Syria isn't subject to the court because it's not a signatory to the Rome Treaty. Neither is the United States. Neither is Israel. So they just make it up as they go along. There is no jurisprudence there in the ICC. There's no—and Ireland comes in and says—

Well, you know what we want you to do? We want you to expand the definition of genocide to cover Israel, even though Israel wasn't covered when it allegedly engaged in the act. We want you to redefine genocide, apply it retroactively to Israel. So I've put together this great team, two former attorney generals in the United States, a former solicitor general, a Democrat, bipartisan, right.

lawyers, professors, great litigators, and we're going to be filing briefs against the ICC. Now, Israel hasn't decided quite how to deal with this. Will they recognize the jurisdiction of the court? We don't have that problem because we're just outsiders. We don't have to recognize anybody's jurisdiction. We can just show how absurd

the court's arrest warrants are and why they have to be withdrawn. But, you know, they won't withdraw them. And Gallant and Natchezo will not be able to travel the world. You know, Professor Dershowitz, on sort of a broader level, one of the phenomena I think that we're seeing internationally is as voters decide that they don't like particular sides of the aisle, the amount of lawfare that's now being unleashed in a wide variety of countries and internationally is absolutely astonishing and it's breaking the systems.

That's true in the United States where lawfare was unleashed against President Trump in order to stop him from becoming president again and is still being unleashed against him. It's true in Israel where lawfare has been unleashed against Prime Minister Netanyahu in a sort of bizarre attempt to get him to abdicate his office. You've seen lawfare used everywhere from South America to Europe to Korea. The –

attempt to sort of avoid the consequences of elections by unleashing a quote-unquote independent attorney general or some other form of lawfare against leadership. This is now seeming to become almost de rigueur in a wide variety of countries. It's really dangerous.

Yeah, I devised the term lawfare in the 1970s. I used it in the context of guerrilla lawfare used by people like Abby Hoffman back in the 1970s. I was Hoffman's lawyer. And now the term has been used by governments. A dictator in South America once said, for my friends, everything, for my enemies, the law. You can use the law anywhere.

Justice Jackson, great Robert Jackson, once wrote, he was the prosecutor at Nuremberg, that there are so many laws on the book that any prosecutor could find many, many felonies against any political figure they wanted. And the question is who they choose to go after. A friend of mine, Harvey Civilgate, wrote a book called Three Felonies a Day, which

citing the Soviet Union. Everybody commits three felonies a day and the Soviet Union just picks and chooses. So lawfare is terribly, terribly dangerous. I met with President Trump the other day, President-elect Trump, and we talked about lawfare. And I told him I'm available to consult with him and with anybody in his administration on doing away with lawfare. It

that it's a primary issue that we have to see the end of because with lawfare, we can't trust the American judicial system. The polls show that Americans don't trust the American judicial system and for good reason, because lawfare has come to dominate the political aspects of using the law against people on selective partisan political basis.

Well, Professor Dershowitz, I really appreciate the time, folks. Go check out his latest book. It is the number one bestseller on Amazon in political commentary and opinion. It is titled The Ten Biggest

Anti-Israel Lies and How to Refute Them with Truth. There have been a million copies printed. It is definitely worth everybody, particularly on a college campus. If you're a student listening to this, you should totally read it because these arguments are going to come up a lot. Professor Dershowitz, really appreciate the time and your hard work. Thank you. Nobody's making any money on this. This is all charitable. We want to get as many college students as possible to read this book and be able to rebut the lies that go on on college campuses today. Thank you so much for having me on. Thanks, Professor Dershowitz. Really appreciate the time.

Alrighty, guys, coming up, we are going to get into some new stats. Actually, out of Harvard, what happened after the demise of affirmative action there? If you're not a member, become a member. Use Coach Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.