The Ben Shapiro Show - Tearing Down Our Institutions | Ep. 849

00:00:00.000 Will the Federal Reserve go to war with President Trump?

00:00:02.000 Should America stop detaining illegal immigrants? 0.98

00:00:05.000 Is a lesbian dating a transgender man? 0.99

00:00:07.000 Now straight.

00:00:08.000 All of these questions and more will be answered on this episode of The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:12.000 I'm not kidding.

00:00:18.000 We're actually going to answer that last question.

00:00:19.000 Or at least the Washington Post is going to try to, because the media are our guardians and our firefighters.

00:00:25.000 Everything's going swell in America, guys.

00:00:27.000 So, let's just jump right into the news.

00:00:29.000 Apparently, the key yield curve has now inverted to the worst level since 2007, so that's some good news to brighten up your morning and your afternoon.

00:00:36.000 30-year rate has now dropped under 2%, according to CNBC.

00:00:40.000 Long-term Treasury rates added to their month-long slide on Tuesday, aggravating a key yield curve inversion and sending the 10-year yield to its lowest level against the 2-year rate since 2007.

00:00:49.000 In other words, everybody in the world is buying long-term bonds.

00:00:52.000 They're trying to store their money in long-term bonds because they do not have a lot of faith in the short-term economy.

00:00:56.000 The yield on the benchmark 2-year Treasury note, more sensitive to changes in Federal Reserve policy, fell to 1.526%, which is 5 basis points above the 10-year note's rate of 1.476% after closing inverted On Monday, before August, the last inversion of this part of the yield curve was the one that began in December 2005, two years before the financial crisis and the subsequent recession.

00:01:17.000 So there's pretty solid information now that sometime in the next couple of years, the economy is going to slow substantially and maybe dump into recession.

00:01:26.000 Now, the Federal Reserve has been pressured, obviously, by President Trump in heavy ways to pump up the inflationary policy at the Fed.

00:01:33.000 That, of course, is a bad idea as a general rule.

00:01:36.000 I am not in favor.

00:01:37.000 Conservatives should not be in favor of manipulation of the currency at the Federal Reserve level.

00:01:42.000 They should not be in favor of the Central Bank of the United States.

00:01:45.000 Effectively manipulating interest rates.

00:01:47.000 They should not be in favor of any of this because when the Federal Reserve messes around with the interest rates, there is the significant possibility that you are creating a bubble that will then burst.

00:01:56.000 It is also true that the Federal Reserve was supposed to be apolitical.

00:01:59.000 Their goal is to be a backstop in case of emergency.

00:02:02.000 It was supposed to be a 2007-2008 recession.

00:02:05.000 The Federal Reserve steps in to cut interest rates and jog spending, for example.

00:02:09.000 It was not supposed to be that a politician needs a lift, and so the Federal Reserve cuts rates.

00:02:14.000 In fact, the Federal Reserve was supposed to be the responsible actor here.

00:02:17.000 And the fact that President Trump is calling on the Federal Reserve not to be responsible in order to pump up the economy in advance of the election is not a particularly good thing.

00:02:25.000 And if a Democrat were doing this, Republicans would rightly be outraged.

00:02:28.000 Now, does that mean that the Federal Reserve should be acting politically?

00:02:31.000 No, it doesn't.

00:02:32.000 The theme of today's show is going to be the failure of our institutions and the fact that everyone is losing faith in our institutions and for good reason.

00:02:39.000 The politicization of our institutions in every single possible way is devastating to America's social fabric, to our trust in each other.

00:02:48.000 If you cannot trust that our institutions are going to run like they are supposed to run, then it's going to be very difficult to explain why we should have delegated power to those institutions in the first place.

00:02:57.000 Maybe it leads to a libertarian moment.

00:02:59.000 Alternatively, maybe it leads to tribal warfare politics in which you don't care about the institutions themselves and maintaining the integrity of the institutions themselves.

00:03:08.000 All you care about is who's in control of the government gun.

00:03:12.000 We'll get to all of this in just one second, this particularly depressing message in just one second.

00:03:16.000 But first, I believe in gun ownership for a variety of reasons.

00:03:19.000 I believe in gun ownership because I care a lot about my personal safety and the safety of my family.

00:03:22.000 I care about gun ownership because I believe that the Second Amendment is a check against government encroachments on all the other amendments.

00:03:29.000 Right now is your chance to claim 19 free entries to win a gun from the U.S.C.C.A.

00:03:34.000 Responsible people should own firearms and use them responsibly, and the U.S.C.C.A.

00:03:38.000 believes the same thing.

00:03:39.000 This month and this month only, you'll get 19 free chances to win $1,000 to buy a gun, any gun you'd like.

00:03:45.000 Even a beautiful brand new Kimber 1911 just by texting in right now.

00:03:48.000 Just text the word WIN to 87222 and claim your entries.

00:03:52.000 It really is that simple.

00:03:53.000 The U.S.

00:03:53.000 Concealed Carry Association is dedicated to providing world-class self-defense education, training, and legal protection to responsibly armed Americans like you and like me.

00:04:02.000 Their mission is to provide you with the tools and resources that you need.

00:04:05.000 To protect yourself and your loved ones before, during, and after a self-defense incident.

00:04:09.000 I trust them to help me become a better protector of my family.

00:04:12.000 You should trust them as well.

00:04:13.000 Text WIN to 87222 right now.

00:04:16.000 Find out more.

00:04:16.000 Claim your 19 free entries to win a thousand bucks for a new gun.

00:04:19.000 Again, that is text WIN to 87222.

00:04:21.000 W-I-N to 87222.

00:04:23.000 The USCCA provides all sorts of great resources to gun owners and potential gun owners.

00:04:28.000 Go check them out right now.

00:04:29.000 Text WIN to 87222 to check them out and also to have that ability to be entered to win A chance to win a thousand bucks to buy any gun you want.

00:04:37.000 It's 87-222-WIN to 87-222.

00:04:40.000 Okay, so, with the economic backdrop that we currently have, as the backdrop, there's a report from the New York Times that should undercut your faith in institutions.

00:04:51.000 If the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an impartial broker, if the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an institution that stands apart from the hurly-gurly of everyday politics, well then, this should be a disquieting story.

00:05:03.000 According to the New York Times, The Fed could hit back at Trump, a former top official suggests.

00:05:09.000 According to Gianna Smialek reporting for the New York Times, a former top Federal Reserve official implied that the central bank should consider allowing President Trump's trade war to hurt his 2020 election chances, an assertion that drew a firestorm of criticism and rare pushback from the Fed itself.

00:05:24.000 William Dudley is former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is now a research scholar at Princeton University, and he said in a Bloomberg opinion piece that President Trump's re-election arguably presents a threat to the U.S.

00:05:34.000 and global economy.

00:05:36.000 Dudley added that if the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.

00:05:45.000 That's an astonishing statement from the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

00:05:49.000 He's openly stating now that the officials at the Federal Reserve should be attempting to tip the election to a Democrat in order to help the economy.

00:05:58.000 Does that give you faith in the Federal Reserve?

00:06:00.000 Similarly, should it give you faith in the Federal Reserve if the Federal Reserve chairman were just taking orders from the President of the United States?

00:06:06.000 Would that make you feel secure about the safety and security of America's economy?

00:06:10.000 This is a particularly controversial statement, says the New York Times, coming from an official who ranked among the Fed's most powerful policymakers as recently as 2018.

00:06:19.000 It also comes at a sensitive moment for the Fed, which has been under attack from Mr. Trump and trying to assert its independence from the White House and politics in general.

00:06:26.000 Michelle Smith, a Fed spokeswoman, said when asked about the column, quote, But this is the problem with how the Federal Reserve operates as a general rule.

00:06:32.000 by its congressional mandate to maintain price stability and maximum employment.

00:06:36.000 Political considerations play absolutely no role.

00:06:39.000 But this is the problem with how the Federal Reserve operates as a general rule.

00:06:43.000 The fact is that the Federal Reserve is constantly attempting to tip balances for or against particular executive policies pursued by presidents of both parties.

00:06:52.000 Really what the Federal Reserve should be there to do is to set a low steady interest rate.

00:06:56.000 This is Milton Friedman's point.

00:06:57.000 Milton Friedman suggested the Federal Reserve should set a low steady interest rate and that there should be basically they should aim for maybe a 2% inflation rate every year to jog the economy to keep people spending.

00:07:09.000 But they should not be inflating the currency wildly or deflating the currency wildly.

00:07:13.000 And they should be there in case of some sort of catastrophic collapse.

00:07:16.000 This is the sort of Chicago School of Economics view in order to ensure that currency doesn't just disappear from the marketplace.

00:07:22.000 The Austrian School of Economics would go even further.

00:07:26.000 They'd say there should be no Federal Reserve.

00:07:27.000 You should just peg the price of the dollar to the price of gold and be done with it.

00:07:31.000 There shouldn't be any government agency that is involved creating this sort of moral hazard that the Federal Reserve is going to fix all problems with the economy.

00:07:37.000 Regardless, both the Chicago School of Economics and the Austrian School of Economics would suggest that the politicization of the Fed, which did happen under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, That the politicization of the Fed, the executive branch ordering the Fed what to do, or conversely, the Fed acting as an independent political agent to militate against a president of a particular party, that is going to undermine your faith in Republican institutions.

00:07:59.000 And it should.

00:08:00.000 And we are watching this happen day in and day out.

00:08:04.000 Faith in each of our institutions, it's seemingly one by one, Is crumbling.

00:08:08.000 Now, what that would theoretically suggest is that what we need is for the constitutional system of checks and balances to kick in.

00:08:15.000 What we need right now is if you don't have faith in any one branch of the government, then you should have faith that the entire government is going to gridlock itself.

00:08:22.000 That you're not going to... Sure, we don't trust the executive branch if you're a Democrat right now.

00:08:27.000 Well, that's what the legislature is for. 0.88

00:08:28.000 And you don't trust the legislature if you're a Republican?

00:08:30.000 Well, that's what the executive branch is for. 0.59

00:08:32.000 You don't trust the judiciary?

00:08:33.000 That's what the legislature and the executive branch are for.

00:08:36.000 You don't trust the federal government in general?

00:08:37.000 That's what the state governments are for. 0.94

00:08:39.000 The entire system of checks and balances imposed by the founders assumed an endemic level of mistrust in our institutions.

00:08:45.000 So this is where the Constitution really should become valuable.

00:08:48.000 Unfortunately, There are a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the left these days, who are pushing against those checks and balances at the same time we're losing faith in the institutions.

00:08:57.000 So the institutions no longer have our faith, and now they want to get rid of the checks and balances.

00:09:01.000 So if you don't trust the institutions, and you don't like the checks and balances, what you're really arguing for is taking control of the institutions so you can use them on behalf of your own favored policies.

00:09:12.000 Well, that is very dangerous in Republic.

00:09:14.000 Basically, that is two people.

00:09:17.000 That turns government into the Joker's game in the Dark Knight, splitting a pool queue in two and throwing it out there and saying, OK, whoever controls the pool queue gets to be employed here.

00:09:28.000 It turns it into a tribal fight, war by other means, as I suggested earlier this week.

00:09:33.000 And pushing this are the folks in the far left.

00:09:35.000 So Jamel Bui, who is not a very good columnist over at the New York Times, he, I enjoy some of his work.

00:09:41.000 I will say that I don't think that he thinks through a lot of his own ideas.

00:09:45.000 He has an opinion piece in the New York Times suggesting that Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez understands democracy better than Republicans do, which is false.

00:09:52.000 AOC understands literally nothing except for using Instagram better than Republicans do, and maybe dancing on rooftops, but that is a matter of opinion.

00:10:00.000 Yes, because that's true.

00:10:01.000 Bowie says, spend enough time talking politics on the Internet or in any other public forum, and you'll run into this standard reply to anyone who wants more democracy in American government.

00:10:09.000 We're a republic, not a democracy.

00:10:11.000 Yes, because that's true.

00:10:13.000 You saw it over the weekends, says Jamel Bowie, in an exchange between Representatives AOC and Dan Crenshaw of Texas, friends at Ben Shapiro Show.

00:10:20.000 In a brief series of tweets, Ocasio-Cortez made the case against the Electoral College and argued for a national popular vote to choose the president.

00:10:26.000 She said every vote should be equal in America, no matter who you are or where you come from, The right thing to do is establish a popular vote and GOP will do everything they can to fight it.

00:10:36.000 Crenshaw, who has sparred with AOC before, jumped in with a response.

00:10:40.000 Abolishing the electoral college means that politicians will only campaign in and listen to urban areas.

00:10:44.000 That is not a representative democracy.

00:10:47.000 He said, we live in a republic, which means 51% of the population doesn't get to boss around the other 49%. 0.91

00:10:53.000 And then Jamel Bowie suggests that the crux of Crenshaw's argument, we live in a republic, is wrong.

00:10:58.000 He says he doesn't say not a democracy, but it's implied by the next clause where he rejects majority rule.

00:11:03.000 You can fill in the blanks of the argument from there.

00:11:05.000 The founding fathers built a government to stymie the tyranny of the majority.

00:11:08.000 They contrasted their republic with democracy, which they condemned as dangerous and unstable.

00:11:12.000 As John Adams wrote in an 1814 letter to the Virginia politician John Taylor, democracy never lasts long.

00:11:18.000 It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.

00:11:20.000 There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

00:11:23.000 But there's a problem, says Jamal Bowie.

00:11:24.000 For the founders, democracy did not mean majority rule in a system of representation.

00:11:29.000 The men who led the revolution and devised the Constitution were immersed in classical literature and political theory.

00:11:34.000 Ancient Greece, in particular, was a cautionary tale.

00:11:36.000 When James Madison critiqued democracy in Federalist No.

00:11:39.000 10, he meant the Athenian sort, a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person.

00:11:47.000 He says, in more modern terms, the Founders feared direct democracy and accounted for its dangers with a system of representative democracy.

00:11:53.000 Yes, this republic had counter-majoritarian aspects, but it was not designed for minority rule.

00:11:59.000 Nobody suggested that it was designed for minority rule, but if Jamal Bowie is truly suggesting that the Founders were big fans of pure majoritarianism, he hasn't read the entirety of the Federalist Papers.

00:12:07.000 I'm sorry, Federalist 10 isn't the only Federalist Paper.

00:12:09.000 There are like 80 of them.

00:12:11.000 So, no.

00:12:12.000 That is incorrect.

00:12:14.000 The Federalist Papers make quite clear that the Founders were very much afraid of faction.

00:12:18.000 They were afraid of the power of a majority to overrun the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

00:12:26.000 It's amazing to see, but we completely missed the point like this is virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country to diminish faction in favor of consensus.

00:12:36.000 And in the case of the Electoral College, the point wasn't to stymie majorities, but to provide a way to find a competent and popular chief executive in a large nation of parochial states.

00:12:46.000 Well, it was to form a an Electoral College majority out of a plurality was probably one of the purposes.

00:12:53.000 So it was to turn a minority into a majority in some cases.

00:12:57.000 And when it comes to producing representative majority, overwhelming majorities, the founders were very much in favor of.

00:13:03.000 51% to 49%, they were very much not in favor of.

00:13:08.000 But again, this is Jamal Bowie stumping against institutions of our government that were designed to curb our lack of faith in the institutions themselves, right?

00:13:15.000 So now he wants to get rid of the checks and balances.

00:13:18.000 Because AOC's argument could be made on exactly the same basis for getting rid of the United States Senate.

00:13:22.000 After all, the United States Senate gives the exact same number of representatives to Montana, which has like 10 people, as it does to California, which has 50 million people.

00:13:30.000 So why shouldn't you make the same argument about getting rid of the Senate of the United States?

00:13:34.000 As it turns out, this isn't the only attack on institutions that our media are pushing.

00:13:39.000 They're also pushing attacks on our very system of immigration, on borders at all.

00:13:44.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:13:46.000 First, let's talk about the uncertainty that we are seeing right now, springing from the Federal Reserve, springing from international currency markets.

00:13:53.000 Do you feel uneasy with the fact that policymakers across the world are now relying on central banks to prop up their economies with inflation and deflation and raising interest rates and lowering interest rates.

00:14:03.000 Maybe you're interested in investing in currency that is not dependent on the vacillation of central bankers who are now dependent on the political whim of their masters in governments all over the world.

00:14:13.000 Well, this may be one reason that you want to seriously consider including some cryptocurrency in your portfolio.

00:14:20.000 Cryptocurrency is basically the digital equivalent of gold.

00:14:23.000 What it is, is a currency that is protected by blockchain.

00:14:27.000 They're not manufacturing more of it.

00:14:29.000 The idea is that it holds value specifically because you can't change it.

00:14:33.000 There's nobody who's manipulating the currency.

00:14:35.000 eToro is smart crypto trading made easy.

00:14:37.000 Etoro's social trading platform has over 11 million traders and facilitates over $1 trillion in trading volume per year globally.

00:14:44.000 You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.

00:14:46.000 They've got 15 different coins available.

00:14:48.000 They've got low and transparent fees.

00:14:50.000 Try it before you trade with a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget.

00:14:53.000 Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts.

00:14:56.000 Sign up today.

00:14:57.000 At eToro.com slash Shapiro.

00:14:59.000 That is eToro.com slash Shapiro.

00:15:01.000 eToro.com slash Shapiro.

00:15:04.000 Go check them out right now.

00:15:05.000 It's really great because you can try it before you can trade.

00:15:07.000 And that means that you actually get experience with it.

00:15:09.000 See how it works for you.

00:15:11.000 eToro.com slash Shapiro.

00:15:12.000 That's eToro.com slash Shapiro.

00:15:14.000 Crypto may sound intimidating, but this is why you should go give them a look over at eToro and learn more.

00:15:18.000 eToro.com slash Shapiro.

00:15:21.000 It is not just an attempt to undermine institutions like the Electoral College or the United States Senate.

00:15:26.000 More and more Democrats are suggesting the Senate is not representative because obviously it's not.

00:15:30.000 It wasn't created to be representative.

00:15:32.000 It was created to require the manufacture of large-scale majorities, near super majorities in many cases, in order for the government to get anything done.

00:15:40.000 Specifically because the founders feared that the institutions would not be faithfully executed.

00:15:46.000 The solution for a lot of folks on the left and some people on the right, too, is that we should just overrun all those checks and balances.

00:15:52.000 And really, we should have an effective government that gets things done the way I want them done.

00:15:56.000 That is incredibly dangerous.

00:15:58.000 Your rights are protected by the inability of the government to do things.

00:16:02.000 That is what the founders thought.

00:16:04.000 Okay, but now you've got the New York Times stumping not just against the Electoral College or the Senate, you've got them stumping against the very idea of borders.

00:16:12.000 So the New York Times editorial board, their wonderful editorial board, they have an editorial today called, The Immigration System is a Mess.

00:16:20.000 Trump's policies are making it worse.

00:16:23.000 They say it has been an eventful few weeks in President Trump's ever-escalating crusade to restrict immigration.

00:16:28.000 On August 12th, his administration announced a rule change making it more difficult for poor immigrants to obtain green cards by giving officials more leeway in assessing who is likely to become a public charge, meaning someone who relies on public services.

00:16:40.000 That's good policy.

00:16:41.000 If you immigrate here and we think that you're going to be on welfare, you shouldn't be immigrating here. 1.00

00:16:44.000 On August 21st, it introduced a new rule jettisoning the existing 20-day limit on holding migrant children in detention.

00:16:50.000 That was designed specifically so that we didn't have to separate children from parents and also so that we did not have to release parents into the interior of the United States where they show up for one court hearing and then receive a provisional green card and overstay that green card and become permanent illegal residents of the United States.

00:17:05.000 The next day, according to the New York Times, The president reasserted his interest in abolishing birthright citizenship, the constitutional guarantee that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.

00:17:17.000 They say, whatever its long-term implications, the president's obsession with what he has termed an immigrant invasion is already undermining the functioning of his administration and the safety of the nation.

00:17:26.000 The Boston Globe reported last week a mass diversion of immigration officers from New England to the southwest border will bring to a stop the processing of nearly all 40,000 asylum requests pending in New England.

00:17:37.000 Similarly, back in March, senior staff members at U.S.

00:17:39.000 Citizenship and Immigration Services We're told that by year's end, the agency would shut down its international division, which assists overseas applicants applying to immigrate to the United States to redirect resources to the border crisis, as if the legal immigration system needed additional stressors.

00:17:55.000 Okay, so now you're just objecting to Trump redirecting resources so that we can enforce our southern border.

00:18:00.000 I don't see you calling on Democrats to provide additional funding so we can continue doing all of these things while ensuring safety and security at our southern border.

00:18:09.000 What the New York Times wants is catch and release.

00:18:12.000 What the New York Times wants is catch and release.

00:18:13.000 End of story.

00:18:14.000 They want open borders.

00:18:15.000 They do not want people who have entered the United States illegally deported, and they also don't want people who are entering the United States, possibly illegally, before their asylum claims can be adjudicated, detained.

00:18:26.000 They simply want an open border where people can walk across, disappear into the interior, and stay forever.

00:18:30.000 That is pretty much the only way to read this editorial.

00:18:34.000 They say the White House appears ambivalent about the threat of white supremacism.

00:18:39.000 Earlier this month, CNN reported that for more than a year, the White House rebuffed efforts by Homeland Security to make domestic terrorism a strategic priority.

00:18:46.000 So now they're suggesting that Trump is ignoring white nationalism in favor of immigration policy.

00:18:51.000 But our federal government spends $4 trillion a year.

00:18:54.000 It seems to me they should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. 0.97

00:18:57.000 And if we are talking about long term effects on the United States, yes, white nationalism is evil. 0.98

00:19:04.000 It is a problem. 0.99

00:19:04.000 White supremacism is a problem. 0.99

00:19:06.000 It is also a minute number of people in absolute terms who are providing an outsized threat as opposed to, you know, if you are if you're just talking about things that will affect the country on a broad level for decades to come.

00:19:18.000 Millions of people entering the country illegally without any check and balance is going to provide a pretty significant change to the country. 1.00

00:19:24.000 Now, obviously that change is going to come with good.

00:19:26.000 It's going to come with bad.

00:19:27.000 It's not an unmitigated evil like white nationalism or white supremacism.

00:19:30.000 Of course, of course, of course.

00:19:32.000 I'm not equating the two.

00:19:33.000 But to suggest that the federal government should spend all of its priority money on fighting white nationalism and none on the border is insane. 0.90

00:19:41.000 That's patently crazy.

00:19:43.000 The New York Times, though, again, stumping against the institution of having a border that every president brings into office a particular set of principles and priorities.

00:19:50.000 But when those biases start undercutting the government's ability to pursue smart policies or even carry out basic duties, a responsible leader must think less about his personal prerogatives and more about the nation's overall security.

00:20:02.000 Again, I don't see the New York Times ever covering it when an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime goes on to commit more crimes. 0.98

00:20:08.000 The fact is, there are significant downsides associated with not knowing who comes into the country.

00:20:12.000 This is perfectly obvious.

00:20:14.000 Yes, we should be spending more money and more time and more resources fighting white supremacists, but this is not an either-or choice.

00:20:20.000 At all. 0.82

00:20:21.000 It's patently insane to suggest that it is.

00:20:23.000 Okay, so, we're busy undermining our faith in the Federal Reserve.

00:20:28.000 We're busy undermining our faith in the checks and balances that would stymie our lack of faith in these various institutions.

00:20:35.000 We are undermining basic policy that any country has to enforce, like having a border.

00:20:42.000 And now, we are talking about undermining the credibility of the media that's supposed to cover all of this.

00:20:46.000 And that the media can do themselves.

00:20:48.000 They don't need any outside actors doing that.

00:20:49.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:20:51.000 First, let's talk about losing your hair.

00:20:54.000 Okay, so male pattern baldness runs in my family.

00:20:56.000 That means I am deeply worried about losing my hair.

00:20:58.000 Lots of dudes are.

00:20:59.000 Losing your hair is no fun, and 2 out of 3 dudes will experience hair loss by the time they are 35, which makes me nervous since I am now 35.

00:21:05.000 Introducing Keeps, the easiest and most affordable way to keep the hair you have.

00:21:09.000 Starting at just $10 per month, you'll never have to worry about hair loss again.

00:21:13.000 Getting started is super easy.

00:21:14.000 Signing up takes less than five minutes.

00:21:16.000 Just answer a few simple questions, snap some photos to complete your online doctor consultation.

00:21:21.000 A licensed physician will then review your information online, recommend the right treatment for you.

00:21:25.000 It's shipped directly to your door every three months.

00:21:27.000 Keeps treatments are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.

00:21:31.000 It's only $10 to $35 a month, plus right now you can get your first month for free.

00:21:36.000 If you suffer from hair loss, the last thing you need is to wait to see a doctor.

00:21:40.000 I mean, you should try it right now before you lose all your hair.

00:21:42.000 With Keeps, there's finally a way to get the help you need when you need it.

00:21:45.000 For a limited time, receive your first month of treatment for free.

00:21:48.000 Go to keeps.com slash ben.

00:21:50.000 Again, if you suffer from hair loss, you can receive your first month of treatment for free.

00:21:53.000 Just go to K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben.

00:21:56.000 That's keeps dot com slash Ben.

00:21:58.000 Go check it out right now.

00:21:59.000 OK, so the media, another institution that you would figure has to provide some sort of check and balance.

00:22:03.000 So we no longer trust the Fed.

00:22:05.000 We apparently are not going to trust the Electoral College.

00:22:07.000 We're going to get rid of the checks and balances.

00:22:08.000 So what would be the check and balance on that?

00:22:10.000 Well, an honest media, right?

00:22:12.000 A media that covers the covers the people in power without fear or favor.

00:22:17.000 I've got some bad news for you, folks.

00:22:19.000 It turns out that our media are not doing any of that. 0.69

00:22:22.000 It turns out that our media are one-sided, that our media have been kissing the asses of Democrats for literally my entire lifetime and probably before, while simultaneously reporting the flimsiest speculative evidence. 0.97

00:22:35.000 about Republicans. 0.98

00:22:36.000 Today's example comes courtesy of Lawrence O'Donnell.

00:22:39.000 So Lawrence O'Donnell was on MSNBC last night and he was with Rachel Maddow, who is happy to engage in conspiracy theories, particularly about Russia.

00:22:48.000 And O'Donnell simply dumped out there this idea that he has a source inside Deutsche Bank that said that President Trump's loans were underwritten by Russian billionaires Again, this is now trending on Twitter, right?

00:22:59.000 Hashtag Russian cosigners. 0.57

00:23:01.000 It's now trending on Twitter.

00:23:02.000 Why?

00:23:03.000 Because Lawrence O'Donnell said he has a one source, a secret source, who says that Trump has Russian cosigners.

00:23:11.000 Now, I'm just going to point out a quick double standard here.

00:23:14.000 Years back, I think it was 2012, I was working at Breitbart News, and I reported a story where I had a source, and the source suggested that Chuck Hagel, then the nominee for Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama, had spoken to a group called Friends of Hamas.

00:23:27.000 It was a bad story.

00:23:28.000 We shouldn't have run it.

00:23:29.000 It was based on this single source.

00:23:31.000 It was reported as a rumor.

00:23:33.000 In fact, I reported it exactly the same way that Lawrence O'Donnell did here, right?

00:23:35.000 I said, this may not be true, it's a rumor, Hagel has refused to respond, all the rest of it.

00:23:41.000 I was correctly excoriated for that.

00:23:43.000 The story shouldn't have been reported.

00:23:44.000 You shouldn't report rumors.

00:23:46.000 Lawrence O'Donnell says it on MSNBC.

00:23:47.000 Not only has it lent an enormous amount of credibility, it's now trending on Twitter as an absolute fact that this happened.

00:23:54.000 Here's Lawrence O'Donnell doing exactly what I was excoriated in 2012 for doing properly, but doing it and not only that, being feeded for it.

00:24:01.000 Here's Lawrence O'Donnell just kind of spilling out nonsense.

00:24:05.000 This single source close to Deutsche Bank has told me that Donald Trump's loan documents there show that he has co-signers.

00:24:15.000 That's how he was able to obtain those loans.

00:24:18.000 And that the co-signers are Russian oligarchs.

00:24:23.000 What?

00:24:25.000 Really? - Really?

00:24:27.000 That would explain, it seems to me, every kind word Donald Trump has ever said about Russia and Vladimir Putin, if true.

00:24:35.000 And I stress the if true part of this.

00:24:38.000 Yeah, that is a scenario that I have never contemplated.

00:24:43.000 This is true, if true, if true.

00:24:46.000 Yes.

00:24:47.000 And the media ran with this.

00:24:48.000 I mean, this is being widely reported now.

00:24:50.000 There is no other evidence to suggest this is true other than Lawrence O'Donnell's word based on a single source supposedly placed inside Deutsche Bank, who somehow has gotten hold of Donald Trump's loan documents.

00:25:00.000 Sure, sure.

00:25:01.000 And now it's trending on Twitter and people are saying Trump will be impeached because of this.

00:25:05.000 Yes, undercutting your own institutional credibility.

00:25:08.000 Believe me, you didn't need Trump to call you guys fake news in order for you to destroy yourselves.

00:25:12.000 It's pretty astonishing.

00:25:13.000 And there are a bevy of examples of this this week.

00:25:16.000 I mean, there are just a bevy of examples of the media humiliating themselves today.

00:25:20.000 I mean, not even this week, like in the last 24 hours.

00:25:23.000 So let me give you another example.

00:25:24.000 Big headline over at The Washington Post.

00:25:26.000 William Barr books Trump's hotel for $30,000 holiday party.

00:25:30.000 That sounds bad, right?

00:25:31.000 I mean, it sounds like the DOJ is spending money with the president's hotel, maybe in order to curry favor with him or something.

00:25:38.000 It doesn't sound good.

00:25:40.000 There's only one problem.

00:25:41.000 Okay, here's the problem.

00:25:43.000 Pretty much the story is nonsense.

00:25:45.000 Here's the Washington Post reporting.

00:25:46.000 Attorney General William P. Barr is planning a holiday treat for his boss.

00:25:50.000 Oh, really?

00:25:51.000 Is that what he's doing?

00:25:52.000 It's a holiday treat for Trump, right?

00:25:54.000 Last month, Barr booked President Trump's D.C.

00:25:56.000 hotel for a 200-person holiday party in December that is likely to deliver Trump's business more than $30,000 in revenue.

00:26:03.000 Barr signed a contract, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post, for a family holiday party in the hotel presidential ballroom December 8th.

00:26:10.000 The party will feature a buffet and a four-hour open bar for about 200 people.

00:26:14.000 Okay, then, here is the actual crux of the story.

00:26:16.000 Barr is paying for the event himself.

00:26:19.000 The DOJ is not covering any of this.

00:26:20.000 No taxpayer dollars are being expended on this.

00:26:23.000 Also, Barr only chose the venue after the other hotels in DC, including the Willard and the Mayflower, were booked, according to the DOJ.

00:26:31.000 So it wasn't like he went to Donald Trump and was like, you know what, I'm gonna slip 30 grand in your pocket here.

00:26:35.000 First of all, Trump's pretty rich.

00:26:36.000 He doesn't need 30 grand.

00:26:37.000 You're going to need to do more than that, I assume, to bribe the president of the United States to do what exactly?

00:26:42.000 But apparently it's very bad.

00:26:43.000 William Barr went to three separate hotels.

00:26:45.000 The only one that had availability the night that he wanted was Trump's hotel, which is a big hotel in D.C.

00:26:50.000 Believe it or not, there are not a lot of big hotels in Washington, D.C., like in the immediate area.

00:26:54.000 If you've ever stayed in Washington, D.C., it really is like two or three hotels.

00:26:58.000 All the other hotels are kind of hole in the walls and small.

00:27:01.000 The official said the purpose of Barr's party wasn't to curry favor with the president. 1.00

00:27:05.000 Well, clearly not, because he could just pick up the phone and kiss Trump's ass if he wanted to curry favor with Trump. 0.99

00:27:11.000 It ain't that difficult. 1.00

00:27:12.000 People do it on Fox & Friends all the time.

00:27:14.000 Really, not tough.

00:27:16.000 Barr holds the bash annually!

00:27:17.000 Okay, so it's not even like he does this irregularly.

00:27:20.000 He has the party every single year.

00:27:21.000 He went to two other hotels, trying to book it there.

00:27:25.000 They were both booked.

00:27:26.000 So he went to Trump's hotel, and he's spending the money out of his own pocket.

00:27:29.000 And, by the way, this was cleared with the Ethics Office.

00:27:32.000 The official said career ethics officials were consulted.

00:27:34.000 They determined that ethics rules did not prohibit him from hosting his annual party at the Trump Hotel.

00:27:39.000 Okay, but it didn't matter.

00:27:41.000 This is on the front page of the Washington Post.

00:27:45.000 Obviously, it's corruption.

00:27:48.000 Man, we should totally trust our media.

00:27:50.000 Okay, then the Washington Post had a piece yesterday. 1.00

00:27:52.000 They ran an op-ed yesterday that is just disastrously stupid. 1.00

00:27:56.000 The piece was by a woman named Marissa Brostoff, Okay, and it was all about how the pro-life movement is truly white supremacist, which is just absolute sheer garbage. 1.00

00:28:05.000 It is absolute sheer garbage. 0.99

00:28:07.000 One of the chief talking points of the pro-life movement is that more black babies are aborted in New York City every year than born. 1.00

00:28:13.000 Pro-life people want to see more babies.

00:28:15.000 We do not care whether those babies are black, white, or green. 0.99

00:28:19.000 This is ridiculous. 0.96

00:28:21.000 I mean, if you were talking about the pro-life movement being white supremacist, presumably they'd be very much in favor of the continued access of minority people to Planned Parenthood. 0.97

00:28:30.000 Because Planned Parenthood disproportionately performs abortions on ethnic minorities.

00:28:35.000 Pro-life people have been fighting against the eugenicist movement for literally the entirety of the pro-life movement.

00:28:42.000 Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and the founder of Planned Parenthood. 0.81

00:28:46.000 She was a racist and a eugenicist. 0.99

00:28:49.000 This is insane. 0.97

00:28:50.000 Okay, but The Washington Post went even further in running this op-ed, okay?

00:28:53.000 This op-ed originally included the following paragraph.

00:28:55.000 You ready?

00:28:57.000 As border controls tighten, the links between pro-natalism and nativism have once again become visible.

00:29:02.000 Inspired by Steve King's admiring remark about Gert Wilders, who's a politician in the Netherlands, Isla Stewart, creator of a popular white nationalist blog called Wife With a Purpose, issued a white baby challenge that went viral in alt-right circles.

00:29:15.000 The mother of six asks audience members to have as many white babies as I have contributed. 0.99

00:29:19.000 Hey, that part is idiotic, but here is where it gets crazy. 1.00

00:29:22.000 Meanwhile, as replacement discourse enters the conservative mainstream, talk of birth rates comes along with it. 1.00

00:29:28.000 Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves.

00:29:30.000 That should bother us, J.D.

00:29:32.000 Vance, author of the best-selling Hillbilly Elegy, told his audience at the National Conservatism Conference last month.

00:29:37.000 Earlier this year, he described himself as appalled by Democrats' permissive attitudes toward abortion.

00:29:42.000 Vance did not need to spell out exactly who was included in the word our, as in our people.

00:29:50.000 He didn't need to.

00:29:50.000 No, actually, he did need to!

00:29:53.000 Because it turns out what he was talking about was Americans.

00:29:55.000 He said Americans need to be having more babies.

00:29:57.000 Why?

00:29:58.000 Because it undercuts America's culture.

00:30:00.000 Not for Americans. 0.99

00:30:01.000 All Americans.

00:30:02.000 Not to have more babies.

00:30:03.000 Because it undercuts our economy. 0.59

00:30:04.000 Not to have a future generation of taxpayers paying into our garbage upside-down pyramid schemes. 0.99

00:30:10.000 That's what he was talking about! 0.56

00:30:12.000 But according to the Washington Post, J.D. 0.98

00:30:14.000 Vance is a vicious, brutal racist. 0.70

00:30:16.000 For no reason, the Washington Post actually had to cut it, and then they didn't even really issue a correction, they just cut the line. 0.96

00:30:22.000 Yes, I totally trust our media.

00:30:24.000 Another example of insane media bias today.

00:30:28.000 There's a piece in the Washington Post, the Washington Post really covering itself in glory today.

00:30:32.000 There's a piece in the Washington Post called, A Harvard Freshman Says He Was Denied Entry to the U.S.

00:30:37.000 Over Social Media Posts Made by His Friends.

00:30:41.000 It's by Deanna Paul and Susan Svrgluga.

00:30:44.000 Ismail B. Ajaoui touched down at Boston Logan International Airport on Friday night, prepared to begin his freshman year at Harvard University.

00:30:51.000 The 17-year-old Palestinian student never left the airport.

00:30:54.000 The Harvard Crimson reported U.S.

00:30:55.000 officials detained Ajaoui for eight hours.

00:30:57.000 After interrogating the minor and searching his phone and computer, they revoked his visa and sent him home to Lebanon.

00:31:02.000 Why?

00:31:03.000 According to a statement by Ajaoui, an immigration officer claimed, she found people posting political points of view that oppose the U.S., though she discovered nothing Ajaoui had posted himself.

00:31:12.000 Ajawi wrote, After the five hours ended, she called me into a room and she started screaming at me.

00:31:16.000 She said she found people posting political points of view that opposed the U.S.

00:31:19.000 on my friends list.

00:31:21.000 I responded, I have no business with such posts and I didn't like, share or comment on them and told her I shouldn't be held responsible for what others post.

00:31:28.000 Then the Crimson reported, Ajawi's visa was revoked and he returned to Lebanon.

00:31:32.000 Ajawi did not return any messages from the post seeking comment.

00:31:36.000 The Harvard spokesman, Jonathan Swain, said in an emailed statement that the university is working closely with the family and appropriate authorities to resolve the matter.

00:31:44.000 Michael McCarthy is a spokesman for CBP, for Customs and Border Protection.

00:31:49.000 He said the department is responsible for ensuring the safety and admissibility of the goods and people entering the U.S.

00:31:54.000 Applicants must demonstrate they are admissible into the U.S. 0.94

00:31:57.000 This individual is deemed inadmissible based on information discovered during the CBC-CBP inspection.

00:32:03.000 And the State Department says visa records are kept confidential under American law, so we can't discuss the details of individual cases.

00:32:08.000 So, in other words, this story is solely based on a Facebook account by a person who will not return phone calls from The Washington Post, who has not turned over his social media accounts to The Washington Post, and whose story cannot be verified or disproved by CBP by law.

00:32:22.000 But apparently this is indicative of the Trump administration's xenophobia.

00:32:26.000 Again, solid reporting there, guys.

00:32:28.000 Really, really well done.

00:32:29.000 I'm sure that's the entire story.

00:32:31.000 Because I'm sure that a person barred from the United States and barred from their spot at Harvard because CBP found something in their profile, I'm sure they would never ever fib to the media or on Facebook.

00:32:41.000 Ever.

00:32:41.000 Now maybe the story went down exactly the way he said, but certainly this story does not provide sufficient evidence that this should be reported.

00:32:47.000 That's pretty insane.

00:32:49.000 But, again, the faith in our institutions is declining at a rapid rate, as well it should be.

00:32:54.000 I'm gonna give you another Washington Post story covering itself in glory in just one second.

00:33:00.000 This one, I think, is the height of insanity.

00:33:02.000 First, The Daily Wire has turned four years old, so congrats to us.

00:33:05.000 Congrats to our employees who keep getting paid.

00:33:07.000 As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses this code.

00:33:12.000 Birthday.

00:33:13.000 Ooh, magical.

00:33:14.000 For all of August, as we celebrate this incredible milestone, we've been giving away a free first month for new premium monthly subscribers.

00:33:20.000 Again, just use that code, BIRTHDAY.

00:33:23.000 Time is quickly running out.

00:33:24.000 There are only three days left to get this deal, so subscribe today and come join the fun.

00:33:28.000 Also, get that annual subscription.

00:33:29.000 When you do, you get this.

00:33:30.000 The very greatest in beverage vessels.

00:33:32.000 It grants eternal life to you.

00:33:34.000 I mean, that's the pitch.

00:33:36.000 So far, it has not yet been disproved.

00:33:38.000 But, you know, let's put that out there in the universe, because I have a source inside Deutsche Bank who says it's true.

00:33:43.000 In any case, Leftist Jeers Hierarchical Tumblr, you get that with the annual subscription, $9.99 a month or $99 a year, which is cheaper than $9.99 a month.

00:33:51.000 Look it up.

00:33:52.000 Do the math.

00:33:53.000 Google it.

00:33:54.000 In $9.99 a month or $99 a year, check us out at dailywire.com.

00:33:57.000 We really appreciate you joining the club.

00:34:00.000 We are the fastest growing, largest conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:34:04.000 So it's not just that the media have undermined institutional credibility in themselves, which they have in radical fashion, and the polls show it.

00:34:20.000 It's not just that we have no real institutional trust in the DOJ or the Federal Reserve.

00:34:26.000 It's not just that we've lost trust in the system of checks and balances that keeps all of these institutions in check.

00:34:33.000 Now we are undermining trust in the most basic social institutions.

00:34:37.000 I'm talking about the institution of family.

00:34:40.000 I'm talking about institutions that aren't even institutions.

00:34:42.000 They're just presuppositions of a civil society like language, right?

00:34:46.000 Like using terms in common, like logic.

00:34:48.000 You cannot have a functional republic or even a functional democracy if we are not speaking the same language.

00:34:54.000 We have basically devolved into a Tower of Babel scenario. 0.70

00:34:58.000 So, the left decided that we were all going to move in one universal direction.

00:35:02.000 It turns out that human beings have different priorities.

00:35:05.000 And so, instead of us all speaking the same language to build something in common, good or bad, we have now been devolved into this insane, this bizarre, chaotic Treatment of language and logic that means that we can never have a conversation with each other again.

00:35:21.000 Let me give you an example of how we can never have a conversation again.

00:35:24.000 This was a piece published on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday.

00:35:28.000 The piece was titled, To some, this queer couple looks straight.

00:35:31.000 For him, that's okay.

00:35:33.000 For her, it feels like a lie.

00:35:35.000 Again, this was published on the first page of the Washington Post website by Samantha Schmidt and Forrest Milbord.

00:35:40.000 So at first, you might be asking yourself, why is this being reported at all?

00:35:44.000 Why is this a story?

00:35:46.000 That a person feels uncomfortable.

00:35:48.000 Person feels uncomfortable is not a story.

00:35:51.000 No media outlet worth their salt would run a story with that headline.

00:35:54.000 Person feels uncomfortable with self-definition.

00:35:57.000 Welcome to the world where lots of people feel that way.

00:36:00.000 No, this article is about how society is cruel and mean because it will not use a constantly shifting standard for sex and gender that makes everybody feel comfortable in their own skin.

00:36:11.000 That's what this article is truly about.

00:36:12.000 What you're about to hear is an insane level of manipulation of language that makes no logical sense.

00:36:19.000 There's no common standard, no logical sense, no internal structure.

00:36:22.000 And yet, if you don't buy into the idea that words can randomly change, chimerical shapeshifters, they can just move around, then that's because you are bad.

00:36:31.000 So now we're undermining human language.

00:36:34.000 It's not just enough to undermine the Federal Reserve or undermine the media.

00:36:38.000 Now the media are busily undermining basic human language, ability to communicate with each other.

00:36:44.000 Because after you read this piece, you'll be so confused you never want to read another piece.

00:36:48.000 When Kate Murray and Andy Arnold first started dating in their early 20s, they were part of a tight-knit group of lesbian friends in the district. 0.99

00:36:54.000 The couple and their friends hung out almost every weekend, organizing potluck dinners and frequenting ladies' nights at local gay bars.

00:37:01.000 Then, about two years ago, Andy came out as a transgender man.

00:37:05.000 And as he transitioned with Kate's support, the couple suddenly felt they no longer belonged in the women-centric spaces they were used to.

00:37:11.000 They tried testing out a new group of friends, a blank slate, a group in which Andy wouldn't have to talk about his trans identity, he said. 0.78

00:37:17.000 He could just blend in as a man.

00:37:19.000 To the new friends, they were just Andy and Kate, a man dating a woman.

00:37:22.000 And that was just how Andy liked it.

00:37:24.000 But to Kate, it felt like a lie.

00:37:25.000 She wanted to express her queer identity, she said, but how could she do that without making Andy uncomfortable?

00:37:30.000 Okay, so we have two conflicts of vision here.

00:37:34.000 And the one vision, you have a lesbian who wants to be known as a lesbian because she feels like it's a part of her identity to be a lesbian.

00:37:40.000 And she's dating a biological woman.

00:37:42.000 So that would seem to fit the criteria.

00:37:44.000 On the other hand, we have a society in the media that suggests that if a biological woman has surgeries and hormone treatments and believes that she is a man, that she is now a man, which means that the formerly lesbian woman is actually straight because she is a lesbian. 0.50

00:37:59.000 She's a woman who is dating a man, right?

00:38:01.000 So by biological definition, Kate is right.

00:38:04.000 So if she uses normal definitions of sex, you know, the ones we've been using for all of human history, then Kate is correct. 0.97

00:38:10.000 But she's also insensitive and cruel because then she'd think like I am, right?

00:38:14.000 So instead, the media are purporting to provide this view that Andy is an actual man, which means that Kate is straight.

00:38:20.000 So who's intolerant?

00:38:21.000 Is Kate intolerant because Kate doesn't consider Andy an actual man?

00:38:24.000 Or is Andy intolerant because he doesn't consider Kate an actual lesbian?

00:38:27.000 Which one is it?

00:38:28.000 The Washington Post answer?

00:38:30.000 Society is intolerant.

00:38:33.000 It's you!

00:38:34.000 You reading the story!

00:38:36.000 You! 0.99

00:38:37.000 We are intolerant because we're looking at this and we thought that this is a pretty binary question, right?

00:38:42.000 Either Andy is a man or Andy's a woman. 0.99

00:38:44.000 I mean, there are no other choices here.

00:38:45.000 There's no other choice on the board.

00:38:47.000 Either Andy's a man or a woman. 0.97

00:38:48.000 By one standard, the crazy left media, insane gender studies, bizarro standard, Andy is a man, which means Kate is straight.

00:38:57.000 By the biological definition, Annie's a woman, which means Kate's a lesbian. 0.97

00:39:01.000 Those are the only two choices.

00:39:02.000 Nah.

00:39:03.000 You thought that this was a logical Kobayashi Maru problem?

00:39:06.000 Wrong that you are.

00:39:07.000 William Shatner here has found a way out of the Kobayashi Maru problem.

00:39:11.000 His solution is you're the bigot for reading the story and believing in logic and language.

00:39:18.000 Wait for it.

00:39:19.000 Wait for it.

00:39:20.000 Okay?

00:39:20.000 For the couple who are now engaged to be married, there are no clear answers to this, Andy said.

00:39:24.000 No matter how much I want to separate my trans identity from who I am, I can't. 0.91

00:39:28.000 I can't separate it from my relationship with Kate because she's a queer woman. 1.00

00:39:31.000 It's a daily dance we navigate.

00:39:33.000 This tension is a daily reality for many queer couples who feel the way others perceive them is at odds with who they really are.

00:39:39.000 That's the sentence right there.

00:39:41.000 Right?

00:39:42.000 It's a daily reality for queer couples who feel that the way others perceive them is at odds with who they really- It's you!

00:39:47.000 You're not understanding enough!

00:39:48.000 You with your logic and your language and your definitions!

00:39:52.000 You're intolerant!

00:39:53.000 You're undercutting both Andy and Kate who'd lead a happy life if you would simultaneously agree that Kate is a lesbian and also that Andy is a man! 0.92

00:40:02.000 How dare you! 0.99

00:40:03.000 How dare you, sir! 1.00

00:40:04.000 This is just ridiculous! 0.98

00:40:08.000 And then the article talks about How Andy is quote-unquote passing, but Andy isn't really passing because Andy is a man. 0.90

00:40:15.000 Or is Andy a man?

00:40:16.000 Unclear.

00:40:17.000 Andy says, I want to be seen as a man.

00:40:19.000 I don't want to have any sort of mark on me that says I'm trans.

00:40:22.000 I think if I were more inclined to do that, Kate and I would probably have an easier time.

00:40:25.000 Some people do feel like I need to represent the group I'm a part of, but not me.

00:40:29.000 I just want to blend.

00:40:30.000 And then the Washington Post really drops the hammer.

00:40:32.000 Again, it's about you.

00:40:34.000 Right, so this bizarre situation that clearly exposes the flaws in gender studies thinking, it's a problem with you.

00:40:40.000 Many Americans still have a hard time grasping the fact that gender and sexual orientation are independent from each other.

00:40:46.000 A person's gender identity does not determine whom they will be attracted to or who will be attracted to them.

00:40:51.000 See, you're the bigot.

00:40:53.000 Now again, this article has nothing to do with that sort of confusion at all.

00:40:57.000 At all, right?

00:40:59.000 But it's about you and your intolerance.

00:41:00.000 Transgender and non-binary people identify as genders different from those on their birth certificates.

00:41:04.000 But, for example, a transgender man might be attracted only to women, or only to men, or both.

00:41:09.000 It depends entirely on the person.

00:41:11.000 And when a person transitions well in a relationship, it doesn't necessarily change their partner's sexual orientation.

00:41:16.000 Just because Kate is no longer dating a woman doesn't mean she is no longer queer.

00:41:21.000 Distinguishing between identities in the LGBTQ community has become increasingly complex as more categories for gender identities and sexual orientations have emerged, many of them breaking with traditional binary notions.

00:41:34.000 Terms such as pansexual have emerged to describe people who are attracted to frying pans.

00:41:38.000 Oh, no, no, no, sorry.

00:41:39.000 Pansexual have emerged to describe people who are attracted to a full spectrum of gender identities.

00:41:46.000 It's a double-edged sword, says the Washington Post.

00:41:49.000 Okay, so if your faith in your ability to understand human language has been undercut, that would be the point.

00:41:54.000 That would be the point.

00:41:57.000 It's just... All of this is insanity, but it doesn't stop there.

00:42:02.000 Because all of this is really... In the end, this is designed to reduce all of life into subjectivism.

00:42:08.000 It's designed to reduce all of life into subjectivism, once all of life is reduced to subjectivism.

00:42:14.000 That the only true happiness can be found within.

00:42:17.000 Because reason and logic go out the window.

00:42:19.000 Because you really can't control your own behavior.

00:42:21.000 Subjectivism is the only thing that counts.

00:42:23.000 Well, if the only thing that matters is your subjective pleasure, your subjective self-definition, then you are going to identify as a member of a tribe, with people who think like you.

00:42:32.000 And then, politics just becomes a question of tribal warfare.

00:42:34.000 How does your tribe gain power over another tribe?

00:42:38.000 And that is exactly what politics is becoming because it used to be you could have a conversation with somebody who disagreed.

00:42:43.000 Now conversations with people who disagree with you are considered verboten.

00:42:46.000 They're considered bad and wrong by the left.

00:42:49.000 How do I know this?

00:42:49.000 Well, I'll tell you a brief story.

00:42:51.000 So, just a few weeks ago, I was in a room with a dude who happens to be, I'm not gonna name him, I'm not gonna name the podcast, happens to be very prominent on an extremely popular left-wing podcast.

00:43:03.000 Friendly guy, right?

00:43:04.000 We got to talking.

00:43:04.000 We obviously disagree on a wide variety of things.

00:43:07.000 And I said to him, you know what we should do?

00:43:08.000 We should do a crossover podcast because your podcast is popular and my podcast is popular.

00:43:12.000 You'll get huge audiences.

00:43:14.000 It'd be really interesting.

00:43:14.000 It could show that conversation is still possible.

00:43:16.000 And he said to me, your audience would be fine with it.

00:43:18.000 I said, I know my audience would be fine with it because my audience doesn't care if I have a conversation with somebody on the other side.

00:43:23.000 In fact, when we do my Sunday special every week, I have conversations with people on the other side.

00:43:28.000 Probably 35% to 40% of the time.

00:43:31.000 Everybody from Andrew Yang to Piers Morgan.

00:43:34.000 I do it all the time.

00:43:35.000 Larry Wilmer.

00:43:36.000 We do it a lot.

00:43:37.000 I'm happy to have conversations with people on the other side of the aisle.

00:43:41.000 What he said was, my audience would kill me.

00:43:43.000 He said, my audience would not allow you in the room. 0.99

00:43:46.000 They would kill me.

00:43:48.000 And that is, that's correct. 0.98

00:43:50.000 That's what politics has come down to.

00:43:51.000 So why should I trust a political system that allows that guy and his audience to dominate me?

00:43:56.000 Why would I possibly be in favor of that?

00:43:58.000 And that's what a lot of folks on the radical left would like at this point.

00:44:01.000 Not a conversation, not a system of checks and balances that requires a super majority of Americans or a heavy majority of Americans to agree to something to change the system, which seems proper in a diverse republic.

00:44:13.000 No, instead what they want is sheer power politics, and they want to indoctrinate your kids into all of this.

00:44:18.000 And there's an article at the Huffington Post that I think is pretty telling along these lines.

00:44:22.000 By Lucy Rimmelauer.

00:44:25.000 Is my kid fluent in racism?

00:44:26.000 So now we're talking about the indoctrination of children into this particular belief system.

00:44:31.000 Radical subjectivism.

00:44:32.000 A belief that American history is awful and evil.

00:44:35.000 A belief that we can't have conversations with each other.

00:44:38.000 That we have to change human language in order to mirror your personal preferences.

00:44:43.000 The article is at Huffington Post. 1.00

00:44:45.000 The repository of all things stupid. 1.00

00:44:47.000 It says, My three-year-old has an uncanny ability to bust me on curse words. 1.00

00:44:51.000 The whole ride home from school, he ignores my questions about his day, dinner preferences, upcoming activities, but then, sure as bleep, What did you say, Mommy?

00:44:59.000 He asks sweetly.

00:45:00.000 Oh, I was talking about a thing, I stammer.

00:45:01.000 No, Mommy, what did you say about that man in the parking lot?

00:45:04.000 He persists.

00:45:05.000 He's referring to when I expletived about a man blocking a busy parking lot aisle.

00:45:10.000 But I'm far more concerned about the foul racist language he's going to encounter.

00:45:14.000 I'm not talking about Trump's racist tweets or comments.

00:45:16.000 These crimes are the headline.

00:45:18.000 Where I feel out of my depth as a parent is the insidious, heavily biased storytelling that I won't always be able to interpret for my son.

00:45:24.000 The language of the news.

00:45:26.000 It says not merely that we're going to twist language now, it's that we're going to indoctrinate children in the twisting of language.

00:45:31.000 She says, when news stories describe latinx asylum seekers as illegal aliens or refer to African-American protesters seeking social justice as thugs, that becomes the hateful way that kids see latinx and African-American people, perhaps including themselves.

00:45:46.000 So just to get this straight, if you illegally immigrate to the United States and you are not properly an asylum seeker, which is the vast majority of people who apply for asylum in the United States, Then it's racist to refer to you as an illegal immigrant.

00:45:58.000 And here's the example this woman used. 1.00

00:46:00.000 You ready?

00:46:01.000 When the 1992 Los Angeles riots happened, I was 13 years old, living in an L.A.

00:46:05.000 suburb.

00:46:06.000 Now, I remember this too.

00:46:06.000 I was 8 years old, living in an L.A.

00:46:07.000 suburb.

00:46:08.000 She says, I was glued to the TV along with my parents, my brothers, and everyone else I knew.

00:46:12.000 The lens for my experience was not the unjust acquittal of the four officers who beat Rodney King.

00:46:16.000 No one on the local news was talking about social justice.

00:46:19.000 They were talking about looters and violent people burning down our city.

00:46:23.000 Yes, because that's what the LA riots were.

00:46:25.000 Literally people running out into the street, bashing in-store windows, stealing TVs, and beating the living hell out of truckers who got caught in the middle of the area.

00:46:33.000 Korean shop owners were perched out on top of their stores with rifles to protect their own property.

00:46:39.000 The LA riots were a horror show.

00:46:42.000 You want to protest the Rodney King verdict?

00:46:44.000 Go for it.

00:46:44.000 That's not what the L.A.

00:46:45.000 riots were.

00:46:45.000 They were riots, and a lot of the people taking part in them were people who were looking to steal a TV.

00:46:50.000 That is just the reality of the situation.

00:46:52.000 It was not an L.A.

00:46:53.000 uprising.

00:46:53.000 It was not a politically motivated quote-unquote uprising against authorities.

00:46:57.000 If it were, it would have been directed at the mayor's office, which is in downtown L.A.

00:47:00.000 That is not what happened.

00:47:02.000 But apparently, if you called the riots what they were, then this is an element of bigotry and racism.

00:47:08.000 So we are devolving into a society where you can't even have a common conversation.

00:47:13.000 Which, of course, undermines the faith in the institutions.

00:47:16.000 But then, also, you don't want the institutions of checks and balances to stop you from beating up the other guy.

00:47:22.000 So you want to get rid of the checks and balances.

00:47:24.000 You want institutions that you can't trust unless you control them.

00:47:26.000 This is how you get to tyranny pretty quickly.

00:47:28.000 This is how you get to people who don't want to have a conversation with anybody living in the same country with them on the other side, but desperately want to cram down their policy preferences on people on the other side of the aisle.

00:47:42.000 This is not going to end well in any way, shape, or form.

00:47:45.000 It's going to get worse and worse unless people come back to the table and start having conversations again.

00:47:50.000 But I don't think those conversations are possible In our current political climate, that's for damn sure.

00:47:56.000 Okay, I'm gonna do a quick thing I like, and then a quick thing that I hate.

00:47:59.000 So, a thing that I like, I have to admit, I laughed really hard at this.

00:48:02.000 So Bernie Sanders apparently was speaking in Louisville, Kentucky, and he stopped by the Muhammad Ali Museum.

00:48:08.000 Ali, of course, the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time.

00:48:10.000 And Bernie Sanders decided that he was going to take a turn on the speed bag.

00:48:14.000 Now, As somebody who exercises frequently, I am not a person who is great with the speed bag in the gym.

00:48:21.000 You actually have to practice with it.

00:48:22.000 Bernie Sanders apparently thought that he could get away with this.

00:48:25.000 It did not go well for him.

00:48:26.000 You should subscribe just to see this clip.

00:48:31.000 He's 80 years old, he hits the speed bag, it comes back at him, and it nearly knocks him out.

00:48:35.000 He nearly gets KO'd by the speed bag.

00:48:38.000 Which makes sense, because if the speed bag is logic, Then Bernie Sanders getting KO'd.

00:48:43.000 He hits the logic.

00:48:44.000 The logic comes right back at him.

00:48:45.000 And he gets... I mean, the wild overreaction.

00:48:48.000 Bernie Sanders almost breaking a hip here.

00:48:50.000 That's some pretty spectacular stuff.

00:48:53.000 I would say that Bernie Sanders... You know, that is the only thing he is worse at.

00:48:57.000 Then punching a speed bag, apparently, then jabbing at a speed bag, like an octogenarian, because he is one, is his take on China. 0.76

00:49:05.000 So this transitions into things I hate, but we'll just do it right here.

00:49:07.000 Here's Bernie Sanders, yesterday, suggesting that China has done a wonderful job alleviating poverty, as though communism and socialism are responsible for that, and not the market capitalism, the free market capitalism, that the Chinese authoritarian regime has taken part in, at least partially, It was that embrace of open markets and free trade that allowed China to raise a billion people from poverty in 30 years.

00:49:28.000 Because before that, China had a different way of alleviating poverty that was kill 40 million people in the Great Leap Forward.

00:49:34.000 I think China is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions.

00:49:43.000 We would have hoped that they would move toward a democratic, more democratic form of government and moving in the opposite direction.

00:49:50.000 But what we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership.

00:49:55.000 Because if I'm not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization.

00:50:04.000 Good for them.

00:50:04.000 I mean, Bernie Sanders, I do love some communist authoritarianism.

00:50:09.000 Again, there's only one problem, which is that the reason that poverty was alleviated in China has nothing to do with the communism and everything to do with embracing free trade.

00:50:17.000 That literally everything to do with opening itself up to different markets, and embracing in capitalist commerce.

00:50:22.000 That's what dengism was. 0.97

00:50:24.000 It was the emphasis on practicality over communist doctrine.

00:50:28.000 Now Xi Jinping is trying to reverse a lot of that stuff.

00:50:31.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.

00:50:32.000 So speaking of the media undercutting its own credibility, there is something deeply amusing about Chris Matthews on MSNBC complaining about the dirtbag politics, dirtball politics, of digging up people's old tweets and using them against them.

00:50:47.000 I'm pretty sure this is what MSNBC does at the behest of Media Matters on a near daily basis.

00:50:51.000 Here's Chris Matthews saying it's just terrible.

00:50:53.000 People digging up stuff on journalists.

00:50:55.000 What are they going to find about me?

00:50:56.000 I come in here, my hair all rumpled every morning.

00:50:59.000 Roll on in here.

00:51:00.000 Don't even prepare for the show.

00:51:02.000 Just kind of jabber on about random things.

00:51:05.000 And what are they going to find?

00:51:07.000 Remember that time I had to tingle up my leg about Obama?

00:51:09.000 I hope they don't find what I was doing backstage.

00:51:11.000 That's weird.

00:51:13.000 Let's talk about the dirtbag politics of digging up bad stuff on people, which we do daily.

00:51:17.000 Let's go!

00:51:18.000 Dirtball politics.

00:51:19.000 Where do you catch this?

00:51:20.000 Trump allies are out unleashing dogs on journalists now, pulling together oppo research and compiling dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts, all in an attempt to try to discredit, intimidate, whatever, chill reporters.

00:51:33.000 He wants their media to stop reporting on him objectively, so they're going out after people's families.

00:51:40.000 It's exactly what Joe McCarthy did, and we do it also, but it's bad when they do it, and it's really, really good when we do it, because we're speaking truth to power.

00:51:53.000 This is very reminiscent of when folks on the left decide to redefine racism.

00:51:58.000 So that racism isn't just bigotry against another racial group.

00:52:01.000 It is bigotry combined with power.

00:52:03.000 This allows the left to redefine racism so that if somebody who is black is racist, they're not racist because they don't have power.

00:52:10.000 So if Ilhan Omar ends up being anti-Semitic, she's not actually a bigot because she doesn't have enough endemic institutional power. 0.99

00:52:18.000 Very much like this.

00:52:19.000 There's the media saying, very bad when they do it, very good when we do it.

00:52:22.000 It's pretty spectacular.

00:52:24.000 If I decide to dig up people's old tweets, that's just something I do over here.

00:52:27.000 But if you dig up an old tweet about how much I wanted to massage Barack Obama's foot, that's awkward for me.

00:52:32.000 I don't like it very much.

00:52:33.000 You're trying to undercut my objective journalism.

00:52:36.000 Subjective.

00:52:36.000 Ha!

00:52:38.000 Yeah, good stuff, media.

00:52:39.000 We definitely will continue to trust you.

00:52:41.000 OK, one more quick thing that I hate.

00:52:42.000 So Beto O'Rourke demonstrating again that if you ask a Democratic question about abortion, things get supremely ugly.

00:52:48.000 So the fellow who actually asked Beto O'Rourke this question called into our radio show yesterday and told us this story.

00:52:54.000 Pretty simple question.

00:52:55.000 Beto blows it like a like a like a marijuana My question is this.

00:53:03.000 Very, like I do it.

00:53:06.000 Here's Beto going for it. - My question is this.

00:53:10.000 I was born September 8th, 1989.

00:53:13.000 And I wanna know if you think on September 7th, 1989, my life had no value. - Of course I don't think that.

00:53:23.000 And of course I'm glad that you're here.

00:53:26.000 But you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same.

00:53:32.000 This is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making.

00:53:38.000 That's a decision for the woman to make. 1.00

00:53:41.000 So in other words, I'm glad you're here, but also, if your mom had killed you the day before you were born, well, then I guess you wouldn't be here asking me this awkward question, would you?

00:53:50.000 That would make my life a lot easier.

00:53:52.000 By the way, I think what we've all learned from this particular segment is I really need to get up on my drug vernacular because it is not strong.

00:53:57.000 All right.

00:53:58.000 We'll be later.

00:53:58.000 We'll be here later today with two additional hours of content.

00:54:01.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.

00:54:02.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:54:03.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:54:04.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

00:54:12.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:54:13.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

00:54:16.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.

00:54:17.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.

00:54:20.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.

00:54:22.000 Edited by Adam Sievitz.

00:54:24.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

00:54:26.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

00:54:28.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.

00:54:29.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:54:32.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

The Ben Shapiro Show - August 28, 2019

Tearing Down Our Institutions | Ep. 849

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript