Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Shapiro. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shapiro. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Ocasio-Cortez Is Just Plain Goofy

Shapiro On Fox: Ocasio-Cortez Claiming Jewish Ancestry Doesn't Matter If She Gives Cover To Anti-Semites

courtesy of Fox News
On Tuesday night, Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, appearing on Fox News @ Night with host Shannon Bream, was asked about the claim by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that she had Jewish ancestry. Shapiro pointed out that Ocasio-Cortez gave cover to anti-Semites who supported sanctions against Israel, like Linda Sarsour, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, by associating with them, and noted that Ocasio-Cortez was simply following in the footsteps of other Democrats, notably Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who had made similar claims in order to distract from the policies they espoused that were bad for the Jewish people. He stated, “It’s an easy way of avoiding the question but it has about as much political weight as somebody being accused of racism and then saying, ‘Well, I once had a black friend.’”
Bream also brought up a Washington Post op-ed from a Democrat which criticized the March for Life for making Shapiro its keynote speaker in January, prompting Shapiro to answer, “The real question here is whether it is indeed about the unborn children, and that’s why whatever I’ve said about abortion has no relevance to Democrat or Republican other than the Democratic party has become the party of abortion.”
Bream started by playing a clip of Ocasio-Cortez claiming she has Jewish heritage, then commenting, “Ben, I know that you’ve raised some concerns or at least put it out that this potentially does not line up with some of her political leanings.”
Shapiro replied:
I’m very sick of politicians just generally claiming that some sort of heritage allows them to get off the hook for their current political positions. I’ve never heard anything about Ocasio-Cortez’s Jewish heritage before this. We’ve seen politicians like Hilary Clinton and John Kerry do the same thing talking about their Jewish heritage so they don’t actually have to talk about their policies with regard to Jews.
Ocasio-Cortez is incredibly close with people like Linda Sarsour, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and she’s not shy about associating with folks who are fans of the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment and sanctions regime so, again, it’s an easy way of avoiding the question but it has about as much political weight as somebody being accused of racism and then saying, “Well, I once had a black friend.”
Bream mentioned one Twitter user who attacked Shapiro, calling him an Uncle Tom of Jews and adding, “In his mind, endorsing BDS somehow outweighs being Jewish …”
Shapiro answered;
Well, this is the usual line, that if you criticize Ocasio-Cortez in any way this is because you’re obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez. Again, here’s the reality: if you are in favor of boycotting, divesting and sanctioning the Jewish state but you’re fine with everything the Palestinians are doing, the Iranians are, the Saudis are doing, the Yemenis are doing, the Afghanis are doing or any other country in the region that has no human rights so speak of, but you’re somehow going to boycott Israel because somebody’s building an extra bathroom in Jewish East Jerusalem, then suddenly that’s not anti-Semitic? Of course that’s anti-Semitic by definition. The State Department says, if you are to treat Israel in a way you would treat no other state, then this is the definition of anti-Semitism. BDS is anti-Semitism and Ocasio-Cortez has not disassociated with anyone who has associated with BDS or radical anti-Israel activities.
Bream segued to Shapiro being named the keynote speaker at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. She asked, “Tell us about how you became associated with them and what message you hope to bring this year.”
Shapiro replied, "The March for Life is an amazing event. I’ve been watching it for years and I never had a chance to attend. When they came to me and offered me a keynote slot at the March for Life, I thought, what better way to bring attention to the most pressing social issue in America and of the time? It is the moral issue upon which all Americans will be judged, I think not only in this life, but in another. And future generations are going to look back and wonder how it is that so many Americans stood by and basically shrugged their shoulders as babies in the womb were killed for the sake of convenience. So I couldn’t be more excited about standing with the folks who are marching for life and standing with the unborn."
Bream mentioned an op-ed in The Washington Post on Tuesday from a Fordham University professor and member of Democrats for Life that criticized the March for Life for selecting Shapiro as their keynote speaker. The professor tweeted, “Hey, March for Life, who will be featured this year to represent the millions and millions of pro-lifers who don’t identify as politically conservative?”
Shapiro stated:
Well, again, I’m more than happy and I wish that there were more Democrats who identified as pro-life, but the question here is not whether it’s a conservative or leftist issue; the real question here is whether it is indeed about the unborn children, and that’s why whatever I’ve said about abortion has no relevance to Democrat or Republican other than the Democratic party has become the party of abortion. I wish that more Democrats were pro-life. It is not my fault or the fault of Republicans that so many Democrats have moved out of the pro-life category and into the radical pro-choice category and pretending otherwise is not going to change the facts on the ground.
Video below:


Thursday, March 15, 2018

Abortion Is Killing Pure And Simple. It Is Wrong, Immoral And Will Lead To Killing Of Those Who Do Not Contribute To Society Or Are Not A "Favored" Group

Shapiro At 'National Review': What Happens When Moral Monstrosity Is Socially Approved?

Photo by Albin Lohr-Jones/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images
In 1961, Stanley Milgram of Yale University came up with an idea for an experiment. The purpose: to determine how many law-abiding, civilized people would torture their fellows simply in order to follow basic orders. Here’s how the experiment worked. Milgram chose pairs of participants; one would randomly be chosen to become a “learner,” the other a “teacher.” Milgram set up the “random” drawing so that volunteers always became teachers, and learners were actors working for Milgram. Learners were taken into a room and hooked up to electrodes supposedly buzzing with electricity. Teachers were brought into a room containing a switch that could shift that electric level from 15 volts all the way up to 450 volts. Teachers were then informed by researchers that it was their job to shock learners for making errors in a word game. The researchers would remain in the room and push the teachers to shock the learners, telling them to continue.
According to Milgram’s experiment, two in three teachers shocked the learners all the way up to 450 volts, even as the actors begged for mercy; all of the teachers shocked the learners up to 300 volts. Milgram concluded, “Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not.”
How much farther would the teachers have gone if they’d had a personal investment in pulling the switch?
Such questions come to mind after reading Ruth Marcus’s astonishing piece defending the abortion of babies with Down syndrome in the pages of the Washington Post. Marcus champions her own moral autonomy as a would-be agent of death: “I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.”
This is a confusing statement. First off, if Marcus believes, as abortion advocates do, that fetal life isn’t human life, where exactly is the tragedy? Why the grief? Nobody mourns the removal of a polyp or an ovarian cyst. Why, then, should Marcus consider the killing of the unborn painful, except that she realizes deep down that she is ending a human life?
And the truth is that Marcus does realize that. She’s just willing to end that life because she doesn’t believe such lives should exist. She rails against the government’s “compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired, whose life choices will be limited, whose health may be compromised.” In these words, one can hear the regretful tut-tutting of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell (1927), the Supreme Court case approving state laws forcing sterilization on the “unfit”: “It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Poor Babies--They Cannot Take A Conservative Expressing His Opinion


Students Complain About 'Militarized Campus' For Shapiro Speech

Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Image

If you’re a college student and a slacker, then attending the University of California, Berkeley is the right college for you when Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro comes to town.
At least one class has been canceled as a result of the expected protests on Thursday, when Shapiro is speaking. One UC Berkeley professor, deciding that the prospect of violence would endanger the students in the class the professor gave, issued this e-mail:
Dear all --
I've heard from some of your classmates that they do not feel safe coming to a militarized campus on Thursday. Given the reality of what's going on, I don't feel like it's ethical to hold class when some are not in a position to attend.
So we will not hold a regular class on Thursday. However, Kel and I will be in our usual classroom on Thursday 3:10-4:30 holding voluntary office hours. If you cannot be on campus on Thursday, email me and I guarantee I will find a time for us to meet early the following week. Kel is similarly available, you should email them for specifics.
Sorry we've had to do this, but in the context of the current attack on campus, I don't feel like we have a choice.
As has been widely reported, Berkeley police are using stringent tactics as they prepare for violence that may occur on Thursday, from creating a perimeter around Zellerbach Hall, where Shapiro is speaking, to shutting down six buildings on campus, including the César E. Chávez Student Center, Alumni House, MLK Jr. Student Union, Sproul Hall and Eshleman Hall, in order to cordon off the area, to obtaining permission from the city of Berkeley to use pepper spray if necessary to confront violent protesters.
Those people attending Shapiro’s speech will be required to pass through security barriers and must have a ticket for the event that they obtained with photo identification.