Scott Jennings had some backup on Tuesday, with Ben Shapiro unexpectedly showing up on CNN. The two teamed up to thoroughly dismantle Abby Phillip's overwhelmingly left-wing panel, which included the perpetually overstimulated Ana Kasparian. 

What transpired over the course of the hour was a case study in the psychosis of the Democratic Party. Shapiro was repeatedly faced with nonsensical assertions and emotional rants, both of which make up the core of left-wing ideology. 

ALSO SEE: The Real Reason Conservatives Watch CNN

KASPARIAN: By the way, I just totally reject what you just said about how we're going bankrupt due to Social Security. Really, you don't think, like, the trillions of dollars we've spent on wars in the Middle East has something to do with that?

SHAPIRO: That's even not remotely a percentage of...

KASPARIAN: No, no, no, our national debt shot up significantly after 9/11, after we started invading countries in the Middle East. Now, we're at 30, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Israel, on Ukraine. Honestly, these foreign conflicts have a lot more to do with our national debt as opposed to use paying into Social Security. 

SHAPIRO: The hell they do.

JENNINGS: You think Israel is a bigger portion of our budget than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

KASPARIAN: I think we spend way too much money for military aid for foreign countries. 

JENNINGS: I'm just asking you as a mathematical matter, do you think Israel is more than social security? 

KASPARIAN: Do you think that Social Security is an issue compared to how much money we just shell out for conflicts abroad? 

JENNINGS: As a matter of math, yes. 

Kasparian starting her commentary with "I totally reject," only for her to totally reject reality, is about what you'd expect. I understand that she hates Israel and loves Middle Eastern terrorists, and don't kid yourself, that's undergirding all of what she says there, but that doesn't mean she's entitled to her own statistical facts. Whatever she thinks about the various wars in question, some of which I also opposed, the spending on those has been dwarfed by the ongoing expenditures of domestic entitlements. As Shapiro notes, it was actually after 2008 that the national debt began to skyrocket. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to that, but they were not the driver of it. 

Again, I don't want to seem as if I'm defending George W. Bush's spending habits because they set a bad precedent, but when you talk about the national debt in 2025, blaming "wars in the Middle East" is like running up $10,000 on your credit card and then claiming you'd have been fine had you just not gone to Wendy's that one time. We have to deal with the actual facts and figures that exist today, and we could quite literally cut out our entire defense budget and still be in debt due to entitlements. Never mind the economic costs we'd pay if Russia and China were able to dominate the global sphere. 

Of course, Kasparian was hardly alone in her idiocy. Phillip, who is supposed to be the unbiased moderator, also chimed in to show she has no idea how Social Security works. 

RELATED: Abby Phillip and Ana Navarro Team Up to Defend Racism

PHILLIP: When you talk about, hold on, when you talk about the government paying, you're talking about Social Security, which is people's money. 

SHAPIRO: Well, it is not the money you paid in...

PHILLIP: It's the system they pay into to (crosstalk)

SHAPIRO: Well, no...

KASPARIAN: You see it on every paycheck stub

SHAPIRO: Okay, yes, believe me, I pay a lot into Social Security...

PHILLIP: I pay into Social Security. I don't know about you. 

SHAPIRO: I promise you, the amount that people are taking out is not the amount that is going in, which is why we are going bankrupt. 

PHILLIP: Okay, but it's not the government just handing out a blank check...

SHAPIRO: No, it's the government borrowing money to pay. You pay in x dollars, and then you get multiple times x dollars when you retire. That's how the system works. It is not a lockbox. This is what Al Gore was arguing about in 2000. 

This is the kind of thing that makes you want to beat your head against the wall, and to be fair, talking to someone like Abby Phillip is doing precisely that. These people either have no intellectual capacity to understand how Social Security works, or they are so deeply dishonest that they are willing to lie to a national audience about it. 

It's ridiculous that Shapiro even has to explain this to supposed intellectuals, but no, Social Security is not "their money," referring to those who pay into it. I pay into Social Security. Can I make a withdrawal tomorrow? Can I take all I've paid in and move it into my very successful retirement accounts? Does it get passed down to my children if I die? The answer to all those questions is no, which means it's not "my money." It's a government tax being used to underfund a collapsing entitlement system, which requires hundreds of billions of dollars a year to be borrowed a year to remain solvent. It is history's largest Ponzi scheme. There is no "lock box." The government is not just holding your money for you.

Moving past the Social Security argument, the issue of crime also came up.

SHAPIRO: One of the other things here, though, is what I think Van was referring to here, which is that President Trump does have a habit of wrong-footing his opponents in a unique was on this sort of stuff. There were 541 murders in Chicago last year, and you can make the argument, I think a plausible argument, that National Guard troops should not be on the ground enforcing crime, both legally, and just as a matter of general position. 

But if the position you end up taking is that there is no serious crime emergency in Chicago on a rhetorical level, not on a legal level, on a rehtoical level, or you make the case that actually crim in Chicago just isn't that big of a deal, which seems to be the mistake that many Democratic politicians are making right now, Trump is going to win that battle all day long.

Phillip goes on to stumble over her words, trying to counter, suggesting that crime is a problem, but that voters don't approve of how Trump is handling it (that's untrue, as polls have repeatedly shown him above water on the issue). Regardless, what Shapiro is talking about are those like failed Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) and buffet aficionado Gov. JB Pritzker (D-IL), who have repeatedly claimed that Trump has manufactured all of this. That's not a winning message because it's such an obvious lie. 

I'll end with this comical exchange, in which one of the Democrat panelists praises FDR, only to slam Trump over his tariff policy. 

FOROOHAR: It was about patriotism, it was about trying to get people excited about what could happen in this country. This president is trying to raise money by putting tariffs on our allies and adversaries that don't make any sense. There is nothing...the two administrations have nothing in common. 

SHAPIRO: The FDR oversaw some of the largest tariffs in American history, and FDR spent most of his administration ripping on what he called the malefactors of great wealth. So trying to...

FOROOHAR: You know, we'll still living off of a lot of the public works of that administration. I wish we were building highways. 

SHAPIRO: Why are you against what Trump is doing because he's doing a much lesser version of what FDR did? 

FOROOHAR: No, Trump had, Trump has, again, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Let me give you an example.

Rana Foroohar then proceeds to talk about ship-building, as if the current Trump administration, which has existed all of eight months, is responsible for that. The point isn't that granular, though. Oddly enough, while some Republicans are skeptical of Trump's tariff policies and what they are producing and will produce, Democrats have historically loved tariffs, including the over-the-top, harmful regime put in place by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt that prolonged the Great Depression. That makes their sudden opposition to much milder tariffs rather stupid and transparent. 

Which brings me back to the left-wing psychosis. They don't actually disagree with half of what Trump is doing. In some cases, he's actually doing what they've supported in the past. They simply can't move past their hatred for the guy. Everything else is secondary, including verifiable facts. 

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and fight against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.