The Ben Shapiro Show - November 28, 2018


The Politics Of Crisis | Ep. 667

Topics
Manafort and Assange meetings climate change denialism climate change alarmism climate change scenarios climate change reports climate change alarmism and climate predictions European anti-Semitism attitudes
Hosted by
Ben Shapiro
Mentioned
Donald Trump Jr. Paul Manafort Robert Mueller Bernie Sanders Maxine Waters Barack Obama James Joaquin Castro Alison Camerata Luna Kevin McAleenan Anderson Cooper Julian Assange Coen Brothers Chris Cuomo Michael Corleone Hillary Clinton Andrea Mitchell Roger Stone Chris Hayes and 24 more
Saying The Unsayable | Ep. 666 The ‘Real’ Jews | Ep. 669

Episode Stats


Length

51 minutes

Words per minute

202.01

Word count

10,444

Sentence count

775

Harmful content

Misogyny

7

sentences flagged

Toxicity

49

sentences flagged

Hate speech

20

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Paul Manaford in hot water AGAIN! The left ignores the situation on the border, and they go full alarmist about global warming. Ben Shapiro's take on the latest breaking news in the Mueller investigation, including a bombshell from The Guardian and an alleged meeting between Paul Maniford and Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and why it matters a lot to the special counsel's office and the rest of the country. The full episode will be available on The Ben Shapiro Show wherever you get your shows, and wherever else you get yours. Thanks for listening, and Happy Holidays! -Ben Shapiro's Daily Outro: "Outro Music: "Space Travel" by Cairo Braga "Goodbye Outer Space" by Fountains of Wayne "Outer Space Warning" by Suneaters "Outtro Music: Fair Weather Fans" by Zapsplat "In Need of a Savior" by Komando "Outrageous" by Kompass "Outlaw" by Puddle of Nails "Good Morning America" by John Singleton "Outdoor Music" by Jeff Perla - Outro Song: "We Will Figure it Out" by Ian Dorsch Outtro Song: "We'll Figure It Out How This Is How We Do It" by Haley Shaw by Skynyrd & Jon Rigsby -- And We'll Find Out How We'll Know It Out? -- -- & Other Accomplishments? -- "Including: "A Little More Than This Will We Will Find It Out In This In This How We Will Do It In The Next Part" -- "A Good Deal?" -- "Let Me Say It In This Will Be In The Rest In It By We Will Have It In Our Best In It?" -- And Then We Will Figure It In It? -- And This Will See It In We Will Hear It In A Chance By We'll Hear It By Our Best And Let Them Say It? And They Will Hear Them Out In It In Them -- Also Hear It And Let Me Hear It? And They Say It And See It And Hear It & They Will Say It & Let Them Hear It Out It And We Will Let Us Hear It...? -- Will They Hear It It Will Be Better Than That In Them In It And They'll See It & Hear It, Will They Do It? & We Will Be Telling Them In A Better One?

Transcript

Transcripts from "The Ben Shapiro Show" are sourced from the Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool. Explore them interactively here.
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 Paul Manafort in hot water again.
00:00:02.000 The left ignores the situation on the border and they go full alarmist about global warming.
00:00:06.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:07.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:13.000 All righty, we have a lot to get to today.
00:00:15.000 And I'm so happy that you're here with us because it's a joyous time of the year.
00:00:20.000 But the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's, it's just it's just great.
00:00:23.000 Everybody seems to have relaxed a little bit, except everyone in politics who's losing their mind as per our usual arrangement.
00:00:28.000 We'll get to all of that in just one second.
00:00:30.000 First, Paul Manafort.
00:00:31.000 As you recall, Paul Manafort.
00:00:33.000 is the key player in the Mueller investigation.
00:00:37.000 And there are a couple of pieces of news that seem to have pretty significant impact on the Mueller investigation.
00:00:42.000 Piece of news number one came out earlier yesterday, courtesy of the Washington Post.
00:00:46.000 Paul Manafort, you'll remember, was the campaign manager for President Trump for about four months in the middle of the campaign, from like March to June.
00:00:54.000 And now, according to prosecutors, he has lied to them again.
00:00:57.000 You remember he came to a plea arrangement with them several months ago in which he was supposedly going to testify on behalf of the Mueller investigation in a variety of matters.
00:01:05.000 Well now, the Mueller investigation seems to have a problem.
00:01:08.000 Here is what the Washington Post reported.
00:01:14.000 Breached his plea agreement, accusing President Trump's former campaign chairman of lying repeatedly to them in their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
00:01:23.000 Manafort denied doing so intentionally, but both sides agreed in a court filing that the U.S.
00:01:27.000 District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District should set sentencing immediately.
00:01:31.000 The apparent collapse of Manafort's cooperation agreement is the latest stunning turnaround in his case, exposing the longtime Republican consultant to at least a decade behind bars That was like an actual thing.
00:01:41.000 He wasn't charged over that, but he was wearing a jacket made of ostrich.
00:01:43.000 foreign lobbying laws and attempting to obstruct justice, as well as wearing suits made out of ostrich.
00:01:48.000 That was an actual thing.
00:01:49.000 He wasn't charged over that, but he was wearing a jacket made of ostrich.
00:01:53.000 Which, let's be frank, if you're going to be an international criminal and you don't have a suit made of ostrich, I don't know what you've been doing all your life.
00:02:00.000 The filing also indicated that Mueller's team may have lost its potentially most valuable witness in Manafort, a top campaign official present at discussions at the heart of the special counsel's mission to determine if any Americans conspired with Russia's efforts to sway the U.S.
00:02:13.000 election.
00:02:14.000 This posed a serious problem for Robert Mueller.
00:02:17.000 If your key witness is Paul Manafort, and you just accused your key witness of lying to you, and then you revoked his plea arrangement, then that would seem to kind of crush your case.
00:02:26.000 If this is the guy on whose credibility lies the entire Mueller investigation itself, and the key elements of the Mueller investigation, well, this is a pretty big problem for you.
00:02:35.000 If you've been building a case against Michael Corleone, and it turns out that your key witness You now have to withdraw because he's been lying to you.
00:02:43.000 It's going to be hard to convict Michael Corleone unless, as it turns out, there is a second story.
00:02:48.000 So here is the second story.
00:02:50.000 This one, not so good for Team Trump.
00:02:53.000 So according to The Guardian, which has been the leak source for a lot of Mueller investigation-related stuff that is damaging to the Trump administration, here is what The Guardian reports.
00:03:03.000 And this is a bombshell.
00:03:04.000 Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London and visited around the time he joined the Trump campaign, The Guardian has been told.
00:03:17.000 Now, why is this important?
00:03:18.000 Well, because Julian Assange is the WikiLeaks guy.
00:03:20.000 WikiLeaks is a Russian front group. 0.63
00:03:22.000 Russia was hacking Hillary Clinton's email and hacking the DNC, and then taking all of that email and dumping it to WikiLeaks, who was dumping it in public.
00:03:33.000 And the accusation all along has been that the Trump campaign was coordinating in the release of the WikiLeaks emails and the WikiLeaks documents in order to sink Hillary Clinton's campaign.
00:03:45.000 So, until now, there was no open collaboration, or any collaboration of any sort, really, between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks.
00:03:52.000 The closest connection was Roger Stone, who was under investigation by the Mueller investigation, and that is because Roger Stone had been sort of bragging to various folks that he was talking with WikiLeaks.
00:04:01.000 He maintains that WikiLeaks did not Advance him any information before it was publicly released.
00:04:08.000 CNN had reported about a year ago, wrongly, that Donald Trump Jr.
00:04:12.000 had been coordinating with WikiLeaks.
00:04:14.000 They had no evidence of that.
00:04:15.000 Well now, maybe here's the bombshell that the Democrats and the media have been looking for.
00:04:19.000 Sources have said that Paul Manafort went to see Julian Assange in 2013, 2015, and in spring 2016.
00:04:26.000 During the period when he was made a key figure in Trump's push for the White House.
00:04:29.000 It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed, but the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller.
00:04:37.000 The special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
00:04:42.000 A well-placed source, and here's where things start to get dicey.
00:04:45.000 A well-placed source has told The Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016.
00:04:49.000 We don't know who the well-placed source is.
00:04:51.000 We don't know what that means.
00:04:52.000 We don't know whether the source is coming from the Russian camp, from the Assange camp, from the Mueller camp.
00:04:57.000 We do not know.
00:04:58.000 Months later, WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.
00:05:03.000 We also don't know, by the way, about the timing.
00:05:06.000 The reason we don't know about the timing is because he didn't only see Assange once.
00:05:11.000 Even according to these sources, Assange was met by Manafort in 2013 when he was working with the government of Ukraine, which was then sort of a puppet government for the Russians apparently, 2015, and in spring 2016.
00:05:21.000 So he visited three times.
00:05:24.000 Two of those times he was not in the pay of the Trump campaign.
00:05:27.000 So is it possible that he was still visiting with Assange about Russia-related stuff that was not campaign-related?
00:05:32.000 That is possible as well.
00:05:34.000 Manafort denies involvement in the hack.
00:05:35.000 He says the claim is 100% false.
00:05:37.000 His lawyers have declined to answer the Guardian's questions about the visits.
00:05:40.000 In a series of tweets, WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met.
00:05:43.000 Assange describes the story as a hoax.
00:05:45.000 Well, just because Assange says something doesn't mean that it's an actual thing, right?
00:05:50.000 It is not clear that Assange is a truth teller.
00:05:52.000 In fact, it's pretty clear that he is not.
00:05:54.000 Manafort was jailed this year and was thought to have become a star cooperator in the Mueller inquiry.
00:05:58.000 On Monday, Mueller said Manafort had repeatedly lied to the FBI despite agreeing to cooperate two months ago in a plea deal.
00:06:03.000 According to a court document, Manafort had committed crimes and lies on a variety of subject matters.
00:06:09.000 This was always the real question about story number one that we discussed earlier, Manafort lying to Muller.
00:06:14.000 Why would Muller go out of his way to revoke a plea arrangement that cast his star witness in a credibility problem, that created a credibility problem for his star witness?
00:06:24.000 Well, the answer could be that maybe the credibility problem for his star witness is actually not a problem for the Mueller investigation, if it turns out that he's basically traded Manafort's credibility for evidence of Manafort actively colluding with the Russians.
00:06:39.000 So he doesn't need Manafort anymore, is the idea.
00:06:41.000 Now he no longer needs Manafort's testimony.
00:06:43.000 Instead, he's got Assange.
00:06:45.000 Rumor that has been going around has been reported upon that Assange is going to be indicted by the U.S.
00:06:50.000 government on some matter.
00:06:52.000 It is not clear what that matter is.
00:06:54.000 He's not emerging from the Ecuadorian embassy anytime soon to tell us exactly.
00:06:58.000 But all of this makes things a lot dicier for Team Trump than things were yesterday at this time.
00:07:04.000 Now, does this mean anything is going to materialize?
00:07:05.000 No, you still have to connect all the dots.
00:07:07.000 Let's say that Manafort met with Assange.
00:07:09.000 So we have several questions.
00:07:10.000 One, did Manafort meet with Assange?
00:07:12.000 Guardian says yes.
00:07:13.000 We don't know.
00:07:15.000 2.
00:07:16.000 What exactly did they meet about?
00:07:17.000 Guardian suggests that it was about the campaign.
00:07:20.000 But again, Manafort had met with Assange several times before.
00:07:22.000 Not clear that it was about the campaign.
00:07:24.000 3.
00:07:24.000 Did Trump know that his own guy was meeting with Assange?
00:07:28.000 That is not clear either. 4.
00:07:30.000 Did Manafort actively collaborate with Assange in the release of the WikiLeaks emails, especially since most of the key WikiLeaks emails came out long after Manafort left the campaign?
00:07:42.000 So there's still a bunch of questions here, and the media are jumping to the conclusion that all the dots have now been connected, and therefore Trump is guilty of something.
00:07:50.000 But Trump had to know stuff.
00:07:52.000 People in his campaign had to know stuff.
00:07:54.000 In order for anything to be brought against Trump himself.
00:07:57.000 Apparently, according to The Guardian, Manafort's 2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes.
00:08:02.000 One source said, adding, Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports.
00:08:13.000 Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged, which is really weird.
00:08:17.000 Why exactly would Manafort not be logged by the Ecuadorian embassy?
00:08:20.000 Embassy staff were aware only later of the potential significance So, again, we still have a lot of questions that have to be answered about all of this.
00:08:28.000 Again, we still have a lot of questions that have to be answered about all of this.
00:08:32.000 According to sources, Manafort's acquaintance with Assange goes back at least five years to late 2012 or 2013 when the American was working in Ukraine and advising its Moscow friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych.
00:08:41.000 Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear.
00:08:44.000 So a lot of this is not clear at this point, but that's not going to stop people from immediately connecting all the dots.
00:08:52.000 So we will see how all of this plays out in real time.
00:08:55.000 Meanwhile, the chaos on the border continues to bewilder folks on the left, and they're trying to now spin the story that President Trump is cruel and inhumane to the people on the border in a way that no one has been historically.
00:09:10.000 This seems unlikely.
00:09:12.000 And when I say unlikely, I mean it seems untrue, because as it turns out, Using tear gas against people who are attempting to break through the border has been an extraordinarily common occurrence.
00:09:21.000 It happened during Obama's presidency many, many, many times.
00:09:24.000 According to the Washington Times, the same tear gas agent the Trump administration is taking heat for deploying against a border mob this weekend is actually used fairly frequently, including more than once a month during the later years of President Barack Obama's administration, according to Homeland Security data.
00:09:38.000 U.S.
00:09:38.000 Customs and Border Protection has used two chlorobenzidiline melaninitrile, or CS, since 2010 and deployed it 26 times in fiscal year 2012 and 27 times in 2013.
00:09:50.000 The use dropped after that but was still deployed three times in 2016.
00:09:54.000 Border authorities also use another agent, pepper spray, frequently, including a decade-high record of 151 times in 2013, also under President Obama.
00:10:03.000 So, as usual, when it comes to the unprecedented nature of President Trump's activity, there's precedent.
00:10:09.000 As it turns out, the Obama administration did this kind of stuff all the time, but that didn't stop Democrats from claiming that Trump had done something wild and unprecedented here.
00:10:17.000 Sheer panic about the border.
00:10:18.000 Sheer panic.
00:10:19.000 It's so funny.
00:10:19.000 All the folks on the left who accuse Republicans of climate change denialism, which we'll get to in just a few minutes, all those folks are engaged in border denialism on a routine basis.
00:10:28.000 Meanwhile, meanwhile, the Democrats continue to claim that President Trump's use of tear gas on the border, his administration's use of tear gas, is just the worst thing ever.
00:10:38.000 And they're making up stories now.
00:10:39.000 They're trying to come up with a reason why it's just terrible what happened on the border.
00:10:43.000 But the reason can't be people trying to storm the border and throw rocks at border agents.
00:10:46.000 That can't be.
00:10:47.000 It's not those people's fault.
00:10:49.000 It's Trump's fault.
00:10:50.000 Always remember, it is Trump's fault.
00:10:52.000 Orange man bad, as they say on the interwebs.
00:10:54.000 So, President Trump was asked about this, and in typical Trumpian fashion, he said the tear gas is extremely safe, and then he talked about a lighter version of tear gas that doesn't exist.
00:11:04.000 So here is the President of the United States.
00:11:07.000 First of all, the tear gas is a very minor form of the tear gas itself.
00:11:13.000 It's very safe.
00:11:14.000 The ones that were suffering to a certain extent were the people that were putting it out there.
00:11:19.000 But it's very safe.
00:11:19.000 But you really say, why is a parent running up into an area where they know the tear gas is forming and it's going to be formed and they're running up with a child?
00:11:30.000 And in some cases, you know, they're not the parents.
00:11:32.000 These are people, they call them grabbers.
00:11:34.000 They grab a child because they think they're going to have a certain, uh, they're going to have a certain status by having a child.
00:11:40.000 You know, you have certain advantages in terms of our crazy laws that frankly, Congress should be changing.
00:11:46.000 You know, if you change the laws, you wouldn't be having this problem.
00:11:49.000 And I think the funding of the wall right now is, uh, never looked better.
00:11:53.000 Okay, so I think a lot of what President Trump has to say here is basically correct.
00:11:58.000 Although, I don't know about a lighter form of tear gas.
00:12:00.000 I've never heard of such a thing.
00:12:01.000 And I don't know that they actually call people grabbers.
00:12:04.000 I'd never heard that one before either.
00:12:05.000 Maybe I'm mistaken.
00:12:07.000 Whenever President Trump talks about grabbing, I think of something else.
00:12:09.000 In any case, President Trump is not wrong on the policy merits here.
00:12:13.000 When people throw rocks at you, then you are allowed to defend yourself.
00:12:17.000 And you are defending yourself not by shooting people, not by even using rubber bullets, but instead by using tear gas.
00:12:23.000 Border Patrol chief was asked about all of this on CNN.
00:12:26.000 This is Kevin McAleenan, who's the commissioner of U.S.
00:12:29.000 Customs and Border Protection, and Chris Cuomo, who's a block of wood.
00:12:32.000 And Chris Cuomo asked Kevin McAleenan about the use of tear gas, and Kevin McAleenan's like, dude, because people throw rocks at us.
00:12:40.000 What do you want from me?
00:12:42.000 Unfortunately, the migrants pushed through them, overwhelmed them, went around them, and down through the Tijuana River Channel, and then tried to enter the U.S. 0.67
00:12:50.000 unlawfully through the southbound lanes of the port of entry.
00:12:54.000 We responded and prevented that access at the border line.
00:12:57.000 They then went back around San Ysidro and then started to look for a weak spot in the international border fence on the east side of San Ysidro.
00:13:06.000 At several points, they tried to tear down parts of the wall and make a large group entry.
00:13:11.000 And it was in those engagements where people started throwing rocks, assaulting our agents.
00:13:15.000 We had four agents hit with rocks.
00:13:18.000 Thankfully, they were wearing protective gear.
00:13:20.000 We don't have any serious injuries.
00:13:22.000 But they did have to respond to resolve those assaultive engagements as safely as possible with less lethal pepper ball spray, as well as CS gas.
00:13:32.000 Tear gas.
00:13:33.000 Yes, tear gas.
00:13:34.000 Chris Cuomo.
00:13:35.000 Yes, that's what tear gas is.
00:13:36.000 Block of wood.
00:13:37.000 Human.
00:13:37.000 So, in any case, this obviously is not a misuse of resources.
00:13:42.000 This obviously is what has to be done to quell the border situation. 1.00
00:13:46.000 But this does not stop Democrats from issuing a bunch of idiotic statements about the situation at the border. 1.00
00:13:51.000 I mean, fully idiotic. 1.00
00:13:53.000 Again, folks on the left want to talk about climate change. 1.00
00:13:55.000 Nihilism.
00:13:55.000 We'll get to that issue because there's a climate report the left is going crazy over.
00:14:00.000 When we're talking about denialism on an issue, border denialism is a form of denialism.
00:14:04.000 Denying that there is a problem when people rush the border, throw rocks at agents, and try to break through the southbound lanes of the port of entry.
00:14:11.000 I don't understand why you would do that other than you have a political agenda.
00:14:15.000 So here's what the Democrats had to say about this.
00:14:17.000 Joaquin Castro, who's a representative in Texas, who for some odd reason thinks he should run for president, he told Chris Hayes, who is not in fact Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, he told... by the way, that's not a rip on what these people look like.
00:14:32.000 It's just there's one pair of glasses at MSNBC.
00:14:34.000 It's a black framed pair of glasses, like black rimmed glasses.
00:14:38.000 And every single person puts them on and looks the same on MSNBC.
00:14:41.000 This is the rule on MSNBC.
00:14:42.000 You actually can't sit behind the anchor's desk unless you wear the same pair of glasses.
00:14:46.000 In any case, Joaquin Castro talking to Chris Hayes, and Joaquin Castro says, all this stuff that's happening at the border, it's Trump's fault.
00:14:52.000 Why?
00:14:52.000 Well, explain it, Joaquin.
00:14:54.000 Well, like a lot of Americans, I was horrified to see women and children, these are folk, babies in diapers, barefoot, being gassed.
00:15:03.000 And I think Americans were horrified at the idea of agents of the United States government making a decision to use tear gas on on kids that are two or three years old.
00:15:12.000 And as you mentioned, this was a self-created, chaotic situation by the president.
00:15:18.000 He has used migrants from day one, even before he became president, during the campaign, as the number one political boogeyman for him. 0.78
00:15:26.000 He has weaponized resentment and fear of migrants, basically to his political benefit.
00:15:33.000 And that's why you see him do a lot of things that he does with respect to migration and immigration. - Okay, I love this on MSNBC, The Chiron's has a spectacle of cruelty, a spectacle of cruelty. 0.89
00:15:41.000 And then Joaquin Castro saying, they're firing tear gas at babies.
00:15:44.000 Well, no, they're firing tear gas at people who are throwing rocks at them and trying to cross the border illegally.
00:15:50.000 And if those people are carrying babies, that seems to me the fault of the people who carry babies into what seems to be a quasi war zone.
00:15:58.000 Right.
00:15:58.000 I mean, if you if I have a two and a half year old child, I would not bring my two-and-a-half-year-old child to a border to try and break through illegally, knowing that people on the other side were going to fire tear gas, which has, again, happened dozens and dozens and dozens of times per year, including under President Obama.
00:16:14.000 So this is idiocy. 1.00
00:16:15.000 My favorite idiotic comment of the day on the border situation came courtesy of Andrea Mitchell, again, of MSNBC. 1.00
00:16:21.000 This is pretty spectacular stuff. 1.00
00:16:23.000 You say nothing of the demonizing of all of this by calling them a caravan and describing them based on no observable facts.
00:16:33.000 Unknown Middle Easterners without any evidence of that.
00:16:36.000 500 murderers in the midst, etc.
00:16:39.000 Yeah. 1.00
00:16:40.000 OK, this is so unbelievably stupid. 1.00
00:16:43.000 So here is why this is so stupid. 1.00
00:16:45.000 All you have to do, it's amazing. 1.00
00:16:46.000 People don't know how to use Google.
00:16:48.000 I'm serious.
00:16:48.000 People on the left, I don't know, in the media, like Google, in the words of our friend, Cenk Uygur, Google it.
00:16:55.000 It's really not difficult to actually Google things.
00:16:58.000 Okay, so for example, watch as I Google this.
00:17:00.000 See my fingers here?
00:17:01.000 My fingers are currently typing migrant caravan.
00:17:04.000 Okay?
00:17:05.000 Migrant caravan. 0.96
00:17:05.000 And now I'm going to use the tools here on Google, and I'm going to change the date range to 1-1-2014. 0.96
00:17:11.000 And let's see if before that anyone had ever used the language of a migrant caravan.
00:17:16.000 Why, look!
00:17:17.000 The first result from the Daily Beast.
00:17:19.000 The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly tracking a new migrant caravan that is set to leave El Salvador next week, 2011.
00:17:25.000 How about this one from June 13, 2013 from 850 WFTL?
00:17:30.000 The migrant caravan reformed after Mexican authorities denied entry to large groups on this bridge at the border.
00:17:37.000 How about this one from NBC Philadelphia?
00:17:39.000 February 1st, 2001.
00:17:41.000 Large crowds on both sides of the border near San Ysidro and Tijuana marched in support of the migrant caravan.
00:17:47.000 Why, it seems that the language of migrants... This one's from the New York Times, 2006.
00:17:51.000 New migrant caravans trek north.
00:17:54.000 Wow.
00:17:55.000 It's almost as though President Trump did not actually come up with the term migrant caravan. 1.00
00:17:59.000 And you're stupid if you think he did. 0.99
00:18:02.000 Almost as though that is the case, and that you should have used your Google skills if you have them. 1.00
00:18:08.000 Okay, I have to admit, that one is pretty bad.
00:18:10.000 Wait until you hear Bernie Sanders and Maxine Waters' take on this thing.
00:18:14.000 You want to know why people are alienated by the left when it comes to national security?
00:18:19.000 This would be the reason why people are alienated by the left when it comes to national security. 0.95
00:18:23.000 The dumbest statements of the day with regard to the border caravan were reserved for Bernie Sanders and Maxine Waters. 0.99
00:18:28.000 Yes, even stupider than Andrea Mitchell saying that President Trump using the word caravan is demonizing immigrants. 0.99
00:18:36.000 Well, I don't know. 1.00
00:18:36.000 Now it's a running three-way gun battle on the dumbest comment. 1.00
00:18:38.000 Alison Camerata had one on CNN, Bernie Sanders had one, and Maxine Waters had one. 1.00
00:18:42.000 So let's spin the wheel of dumb. 0.99
00:18:44.000 Here we go. 1.00
00:18:45.000 Okay, now let's start with Alison Camerata. 0.78
00:18:47.000 So Alison Camerata made the suggestion on CNN that because people stormed the border, this is why we don't need a wall.
00:18:57.000 See if you can follow that logic.
00:18:59.000 That makes sense.
00:19:00.000 Because someone broke into your house, you don't need a front door, obviously.
00:19:04.000 They would have broken in if you even didn't have a front door.
00:19:06.000 So why do you have a front door? 1.00
00:19:07.000 What's the point of the front door, you idiot? 1.00
00:19:09.000 Why are you doing that? 1.00
00:19:11.000 You're the kind of person where somebody broke into your house and you got four more locks on your door.
00:19:14.000 Well, didn't you have a lock on your door in the first place?
00:19:16.000 What are four more locks going to do? 0.99
00:19:19.000 If this does not seem to follow, that's because it's dumb. 0.98
00:19:22.000 So here's Alison Camerado on CNN saying something that is not particularly intelligent. 0.94
00:19:28.000 As unfortunate as this incident is, I'm not sure that it proves that we need a border wall.
00:19:34.000 In fact, it's the opposite.
00:19:35.000 The border worked.
00:19:36.000 Border security here worked.
00:19:38.000 So however many people rushed the border, 39 were arrested.
00:19:42.000 They're going to be deported.
00:19:44.000 No one breached the border.
00:19:45.000 So, shutting down the border worked, and it also proves that we don't need, I think, a border wall, because the migrants went out of their way to go to the Tijuana entrance, because the rest of the border was considered too hazardous, too dangerous to cross, so they went an extra hundreds of miles to the port of entry of Tijuana, because they considered that the easiest.
00:20:08.000 So, in other words, the system is actually working.
00:20:12.000 Hmm.
00:20:13.000 Interesting.
00:20:14.000 Interesting take, Allison Camarata.
00:20:17.000 So we don't need a border wall because people tried to break through the border wall and went to Tijuana because it was easier.
00:20:21.000 Well, actually, no, they went to Tijuana because they wanted the publicity.
00:20:24.000 And a huge number of people do cross the unguarded portions of the U.S.-Mexico border.
00:20:31.000 And as you may have noticed, Scaling the wall was significantly less successful than them trying to actually break through just the southern lanes of traffic.
00:20:38.000 So, walls tend to make people go around the walls.
00:20:42.000 That's why they're there. 0.98
00:20:43.000 Okay, so that was, that was dumb take number one. 0.99
00:20:45.000 Dumb take number two. 0.99
00:20:46.000 Bernie Sanders. 0.99
00:20:47.000 He has a take.
00:20:48.000 A very interesting take.
00:20:50.000 And his take is that President Trump only wants to enforce the border because of fascism.
00:20:57.000 Now- Look at the nature of this president.
00:20:59.000 Yeah, it's okay, we can play him.
00:21:01.000 Who I think has strong authoritarian tendencies, who seems to love people like Mr. Putin and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the leader of North Korea.
00:21:12.000 I worry very much about for the first time using the military in that way in this country.
00:21:18.000 So I think that is a very legitimate concern.
00:21:22.000 Okay, so he's worried that if we send troops to our border to defend our border, that's fascism, because it's a crackdown on people who are not citizens trying to get into the country, as opposed to countries that Bernie Sanders has been fond of in the past, like Venezuela and Cuba and the USSR.
00:21:40.000 Those were not fascist, because there, they had walls to keep people in.
00:21:44.000 But that wasn't fascist. 0.99
00:21:46.000 Bernie Sanders doing his best to say a dumb thing. 0.52
00:21:49.000 Also, Maxine Waters, who is going to be the head of the House Financial Services Committee, maybe, which is... 0.97
00:21:56.000 Just horrifying in every way.
00:21:58.000 Last time she was deeply involved in the House Financial Services Committee, she proceeded to attempt to drive cash to her husband's bank. 1.00
00:22:05.000 Here is Maxine Waters, a woman who knows a lot about failure to abide by the law, both herself and with regard to the L.A.
00:22:12.000 riots, which she called an L.A.
00:22:13.000 uprising, explaining that the border chaos is a political ploy by Trump.
00:22:20.000 This is what he does.
00:22:20.000 I mean, Trump's a magical, magical man.
00:22:22.000 President Trump went down to that border.
00:22:24.000 And what he did is he just, he's very stealthy.
00:22:27.000 This is one thing we know about President Trump.
00:22:28.000 The dude doesn't draw any attention.
00:22:29.000 I mean, he is just, he's a master of disguise.
00:22:32.000 President Trump took off his hair and he put on a beard and Groucho Marx glasses.
00:22:38.000 And then he strode into the middle of the migrant caravan.
00:22:40.000 He said, guys, I need you to do something for me.
00:22:43.000 Please try to break through the border, por favor.
00:22:47.000 That's exactly how it went.
00:22:48.000 Here's Maxine Waters explaining how that went.
00:22:51.000 I am very saddened to see this situation with desperate people and all of this being the political ploy of the President of the United States of America.
00:23:04.000 He made this the central part of his platform.
00:23:07.000 Uh, that he was going to do something about these migrants who are coming here. 1.00
00:23:13.000 He called them killers and rapists and, uh, he certainly did stoke a lot of fear about, uh, these migrants who are trying to get in.
00:23:22.000 And so he promised the American people that he was going to make Mexico pay for it all, that we would not have to pay a dime for it.
00:23:30.000 And now we have this chaos.
00:23:33.000 That's what he wants.
00:23:34.000 Oh, as opposed to when there was chaos on the border when Obama was president, which I recall, and you recall, and everybody recalls. 0.92
00:23:42.000 So, running gun battle for dumbest thing to be said about the border situation.
00:23:46.000 Just wonderful stuff.
00:23:47.000 My favorite part of all of this is that awkward time an MSNBC reporter actually revealed that the caravan was not full of suffering women and children, that it was a bunch of young men who were looking for economic opportunity.
00:23:56.000 That's when all this got real awkward.
00:23:58.000 So you had MSNBC and CNN filled to the brim with commentators and congresspeople saying, this is all Trump's fault.
00:24:04.000 And then it got real awkward because a reporter at MSNBC down there was like, um, guys, Trump's kind of not wrong about all this stuff.
00:24:13.000 The truth is, the majority of the people that are part of this caravan, especially outside, if we can make our way all the way over there, we'll show you, the majority of them are men.
00:24:21.000 So, when this becomes a polarized political issue in the United States, you have people on one side that point and say, there are women and children here, and that is true, and then there are others who point and say, these are men that are trying to cross the border, and that's true too.
00:24:38.000 From what we've seen, the majority are actually men.
00:24:41.000 OK, oops, whoopsie-doo.
00:24:43.000 Yeah, he said the unsayable.
00:24:45.000 But again, when it comes to the border, it's the Democrats who are the denialists.
00:24:48.000 Now, in a second, we're going to talk about climate change denialism, because this is the new charge the left has been throwing at everybody on the right.
00:24:54.000 The idea is that you are a climate change denier if you disagree with their prospective solutions, which involve massive damage to the world economy and particularly the United States economy in service to something.
00:25:06.000 It is not clear by any stretch of the imagination, even from the proponents of the measures that are now being promoted by a lot of these folks, that these measures will actually succeed in curbing global warming in any serious way.
00:25:17.000 So while the left is completely focused on denying what's happening at the border and blaming Trump for stuff that's been going on for, you know, our entire life, now they are also claiming that everybody on the right is a climate change denier.
00:25:27.000 Ooh, a denier.
00:25:29.000 Now, I hate the language that is used with regard to climate change deniers because Obviously, it's supposed to be reminiscent of Holocaust denialism, like you're denying an established fact that millions of people died in the Holocaust.
00:25:40.000 You're just like those people.
00:25:42.000 And with the same grave consequences.
00:25:45.000 Okay, we're gonna need to be clear about what you mean by denial of climate change.
00:25:50.000 Are we denying the climate changes at all?
00:25:51.000 No one denies the climate changes at all.
00:25:53.000 Are we denying that the world has gotten on average warmer over time, over the last 150 years or so?
00:25:58.000 Very few people deny that.
00:26:00.000 Are we denying that man-made emissions have something to do with that?
00:26:04.000 Very few people deny that.
00:26:05.000 Are we denying that the majority of those changes are coming because of man-related activities?
00:26:12.000 A minority would probably, a strong minority might deny that, but I would say a strong majority probably supports that, even among people who happen to be on the right.
00:26:20.000 But, you can acknowledge all those things, and then if you say, but I don't want a massive carbon tax, nor do I think this is a crisis necessitating the death of the world economy, then it's like, oh, you're a denier.
00:26:28.000 Because what I'm really denying, what I'm really denying, is that your solution is the proper solution.
00:26:32.000 Folks on the left, I don't think that your solution is the right solution.
00:26:35.000 In fact, I think that you are alarmist.
00:26:36.000 I think that you are creating alarm around a problem that is not, in fact, as extraordinarily dire as you make it out to be.
00:26:45.000 Are there costs to global warming?
00:26:46.000 Sure.
00:26:46.000 Are those costs being wildly exaggerated for political purposes by folks on the left?
00:26:50.000 You bet your ass they are. 0.95
00:26:51.000 So there's a new study out, and this new study suggests millions will die thanks to climate change. 0.99
00:26:58.000 And this leads all the people in the Democratic caucus to tweet out, you don't care if millions of people die.
00:27:02.000 Okay, let me just tell you.
00:27:04.000 You already said we're going to die because of net neutrality.
00:27:05.000 You already said the tax cuts were going to kill us.
00:27:07.000 You already said that revoking parts of Obamacare, that was going to kill millions. 0.59
00:27:11.000 And we're already dead like three times over.
00:27:13.000 How many times do we need to die?
00:27:14.000 Like we're all going to die.
00:27:15.000 So I've died like four times.
00:27:17.000 Am I a cat here?
00:27:18.000 Like I can't actually die that many times it turns out.
00:27:21.000 And now they're citing this new federal study that has come out that supposedly shows that we are all going to die.
00:27:26.000 Why?
00:27:27.000 Well because there is a brand new report from the CDC And it confirms that climate change is going to kill thousands of people.
00:27:35.000 Thousands of humans will die.
00:27:38.000 OK, so how do we know that lots of people are going to die? 0.90
00:27:41.000 Let me give you the ridiculous math behind some of these things.
00:27:45.000 So they say, for example, that the consensus is that over the next century, the water level could rise.
00:27:50.000 Not will, could.
00:27:51.000 All the modeling so far has been wrong.
00:27:53.000 That it could rise by five feet in certain areas of the United States, like three feet in Los Angeles.
00:27:58.000 The general water levels could rise.
00:28:00.000 Well, number one, the water level rises that have been forecast so far have not actually been accurate.
00:28:04.000 Number two, if that happens over the course of a century, you think people might move their houses?
00:28:09.000 You think maybe people might move inland?
00:28:10.000 You know, like they have over the course of time?
00:28:12.000 That people might adapt to their climate because human beings are adaptable creatures?
00:28:16.000 I'm always bewildered by this idea that humans can't move.
00:28:19.000 I mean, how do you think people got to America?
00:28:21.000 How do you think people got to different parts of the globe?
00:28:23.000 In any case, this is my favorite part.
00:28:25.000 The people on the left are taking the most extraordinary claims of this study, and then they are claiming that this is evidence that the National Climate Assessment means that we're all going to die.
00:28:35.000 So, CNN put out this statistic.
00:28:37.000 You've seen it in all the headlines.
00:28:38.000 It's on the front page of the New York Times.
00:28:40.000 There is a possibility of a 10% loss in GDP due to climate change by 2100.
00:28:49.000 Ooh, 10% loss in GDP in climate change by 2100.
00:28:52.000 Now, that 10% loss does not actually envision a 10% loss from our current global GDP.
00:28:59.000 It is a 10% lower GDP than would otherwise be the case without global warming in 100 years.
00:29:04.000 In 100 years, our GDP is going to be pretty freaking amazing, right?
00:29:07.000 Just by global trends, our GDP is going to be extraordinary.
00:29:10.000 But Here's what's even weirder.
00:29:12.000 It turns out that the 10% GDP number is not consistent with the physical science part of the report.
00:29:17.000 It is a political conclusion buried in Chapter 29 of the report, according to Roger Pilkey, who is author of The Edge, The Honest Broker and The Climate Fix.
00:29:26.000 So here is what he says.
00:29:27.000 He says that it is it represents a temperature change two times the already implausible RCP 8.5 scenario.
00:29:34.000 So all of these climate change reports rely on a variety of scenarios.
00:29:37.000 What they say is we don't know where this is going.
00:29:39.000 And so they present a bunch of scenarios.
00:29:41.000 They present the observed scenario, which basically has mirrored the lowest scenario thus far.
00:29:46.000 And then they present the The lower scenario, which is RCP 4.5, and the higher scenario, which is RCP 8.5.
00:29:53.000 But the RCP 8.5 is associated with only a 4 degree Celsius temperature change over the course of the next century.
00:30:00.000 So how exactly are they coming to this 10% figure?
00:30:03.000 They are doubling that figure.
00:30:05.000 They're doubling it.
00:30:06.000 They're coming up with a number that is double what their own report says.
00:30:12.000 It's really astonishing.
00:30:14.000 I mean, astonishing stuff.
00:30:16.000 So, according to Pilkey, if the experts are going to demand they be trusted, their numbers should add up right here.
00:30:21.000 They don't.
00:30:22.000 One way to ensure robust assessments is to invite critical voices rather than exclude them.
00:30:26.000 This error was easily preventable.
00:30:28.000 But that idea that 10% is going to be knocked off the GDP is just not true.
00:30:33.000 It's not even true according to the report itself.
00:30:36.000 It was promoted by people.
00:30:38.000 But again, this was a complete misread of the scientific part of the report.
00:30:41.000 That's not the only misread.
00:30:42.000 They say thousands will die.
00:30:43.000 Why?
00:30:44.000 Because they say that thanks to climate change, 26,000 more people will commit suicide by 2050.
00:30:51.000 This is in the report.
00:30:54.000 How do they know that you're going to kill yourself because it's hot outside?
00:30:57.000 According to Robinson Mayer over at The Atlantic, unusually hot days have profound effects on mental health and human physiology.
00:31:04.000 Suicide is one of the least understood phenomena in social science.
00:31:07.000 It's very difficult to link social forces to suicide.
00:31:11.000 It's difficult to link bullying to suicide.
00:31:12.000 It's difficult to link poverty to suicide.
00:31:14.000 It's difficult to link race to suicide.
00:31:16.000 It is very difficult to find out where suicide is.
00:31:18.000 But this report says that 26,000 more people will kill themselves by 2050 because it's hot outside.
00:31:25.000 Forgive me if I go, no, not so much.
00:31:28.000 Now, there's a difference between acknowledging the reality of climate change and trying to figure out what are the best measures and when would those measures kick in and denying climate change itself.
00:31:38.000 And I think the simple-minded version here is to say climate change isn't happening or it's not man-caused.
00:31:42.000 I'm not suggesting any of that.
00:31:43.000 So I am not, in fact, a climate denier.
00:31:45.000 But if you are going to make claims, those claims should be backed by science and the measures that you are projecting out should have some bearing on what exactly you are seeking to prevent.
00:31:56.000 I'll get to all that in just one second.
00:31:58.000 But first, so let me start by showing you what President Trump had to say.
00:32:01.000 Here's what President Trump had to say about the climate change report released by his own scientists.
00:32:05.000 Again, these scientists are drawing political conclusions.
00:32:07.000 The same thing happened with the IPCC report, the International Panel on Social Science.
00:32:13.000 All that happened on climate change.
00:32:16.000 All of that happened months ago.
00:32:18.000 And we went through that report like in full on the show then.
00:32:22.000 They're doing the same thing now.
00:32:22.000 And Trump's like, listen, a lot of this stuff is political.
00:32:25.000 And again, he's not wrong.
00:32:27.000 I don't believe it.
00:32:28.000 No, no, I don't believe it.
00:32:30.000 And here's the other thing.
00:32:33.000 You're going to have to have China and Japan and all of Asia and all of these other countries, you know, addresses our country.
00:32:41.000 Right now, we're at the cleanest we've ever been.
00:32:44.000 And that's very important to me.
00:32:46.000 But if we're clean, but every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good.
00:32:52.000 So I want clean air.
00:32:53.000 I want clean water.
00:32:54.000 Very important.
00:32:55.000 OK, well, he's not saying anything wrong here, and he is correct that if the United States were to cut emissions, which we have been, we were the single largest reducers of emissions last year.
00:33:04.000 If we were to cut emissions by ourselves, you know what happened to global warming?
00:33:08.000 Pretty much nothing, because China is still the leading emitter on planet Earth. 1.00
00:33:12.000 India is a leading emitter.
00:33:13.000 Russia is a leading emitter.
00:33:15.000 There are lots of developing countries that are leading emitters.
00:33:18.000 China, by the way, I love that everybody's like, well, China signed on to the Paris Accords and the United States didn't.
00:33:23.000 The United States reduced its emissions last year.
00:33:24.000 You know what China did? 0.95
00:33:25.000 They increased their emissions last year.
00:33:27.000 They've been increasing their emissions every year.
00:33:28.000 They are planning to increase their emissions all the way up till 2030 for another 12 years minimum.
00:33:33.000 But this doesn't stop Anderson Cooper from CNN saying, you know, maybe President Trump, I love the sneering here.
00:33:38.000 Maybe President Trump should check out climate change kids because he's like a child.
00:33:42.000 He doesn't understand climate change.
00:33:44.000 The President of the United States seems to be honestly believing that global warming means it never gets cold anywhere.
00:33:52.000 NASA has a good explanation of the difference between weather and climate on its website, its website for children.
00:33:58.000 So we're just suggesting, Mr. President, if you don't want to believe science or the 1,600-page report your team tried to slip past the American public on Friday, maybe just start with climatekids.nasa.gov.
00:34:14.000 OK, do you think that Anderson Cooper read that 1600 page report?
00:34:17.000 Do you think that Anderson Cooper holds by his rule of not reporting weather as climate?
00:34:20.000 Because it seems like every time there's a hurricane, we hear from the left that this is a this is a climate change issue, as opposed to, you know, a weather event.
00:34:28.000 Every time it is extraordinarily hot in California, like, ooh, climate change.
00:34:32.000 Right, so the media have been complicit in the conflation of weather and climate.
00:34:36.000 Weather is a trend or pattern over time.
00:34:38.000 Climate, I mean, that is climate.
00:34:40.000 Weather is individual climate events, right?
00:34:43.000 It's an individual event.
00:34:44.000 It's hot outside today.
00:34:45.000 This is not evidence of a trend over time.
00:34:46.000 It's a data point.
00:34:48.000 In any case, The left is in the habit of exaggerating these reports and picking out the most alarmist headlines, which then are never met.
00:34:55.000 What's fascinating about this is if folks on the left really wanted us to take climate change seriously, they'd be moderate in their assessments.
00:35:01.000 They would say, OK, here's the moderate case, and then here's what we should do to prevent the moderate case from happening.
00:35:05.000 Instead, they pick the most wild, outlying, alarmist predictions, like 10% loss of GDP by 2100.
00:35:09.000 They're like, that, that's what's going to happen.
00:35:12.000 Oh, well, 30,000 people are going to commit suicide because it's hot outside.
00:35:16.000 And this is where they go. 0.99
00:35:17.000 They pick the most alarmist prediction, and then when it doesn't materialize, and the right goes, hey, you know, you guys have been doing this crap for like 20 years.
00:35:24.000 Al Gore claimed that all the polar ice caps were going to be gone, like, five years ago.
00:35:28.000 They're not gone.
00:35:30.000 And then the left's like, well, that's because you don't take this stuff seriously.
00:35:32.000 How about if you just told us what your moderate prediction was that you can fulfill, and then I could take seriously the rest of your predictions?
00:35:39.000 Again, the IPCC has consistently revised downward its estimates of impending doom.
00:35:46.000 They had an AR5 report in 2014.
00:35:49.000 According to that report, the level of climate change observed was going to be higher than it was in their recent IPCC report.
00:35:55.000 And also, we have to actually determine how much damage is going to be done.
00:35:59.000 As I mentioned on the show before, there's a guy named William Nordhaus at Yale.
00:36:02.000 The political left celebrated him because he won the Nobel Prize in Economics this year.
00:36:06.000 It was supposed to be a slap in the face to the Trump administration, but Nordhaus' work suggests that the IPCC alarmism is just wrong.
00:36:13.000 He himself argues the optimal trajectory for climate would end with a 3.5 degree Celsius increase in degrees in global temperature by 2100, not 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees.
00:36:26.000 He says that the international target for climate change with a limit of 2 degrees Celsius is infeasible.
00:36:31.000 He says the target of 2.5 degrees Celsius is technically feasible, but would require extreme and virtually universal global policy measures in the near future.
00:36:40.000 He said if we tried to hold to 2.5 degrees Celsius, it could avert $91 trillion of damage, but would cost $134 trillion in economic damage.
00:36:49.000 When the left says, well, if we just take a few minor economic fixes here, that'll fix... Nope.
00:36:53.000 Nope, it won't.
00:36:54.000 It won't.
00:36:54.000 If their most alarmist predictions are true, what they're really calling for is a complete breakdown of the world economy.
00:36:59.000 So forget about a 10% reduction in GDP by 2100, we're talking about a 50% reduction in GDP like now.
00:37:05.000 Right?
00:37:05.000 That's what they're actually talking about if they believe their own worst case assessments.
00:37:09.000 All this is, again, the alarmism is what's killing the case for climate change, and it's why people don't believe the worst.
00:37:14.000 Because the worst has not materialized.
00:37:17.000 Speaking of which, we keep hearing about carbon taxes from the left.
00:37:21.000 Well, what we really need here is carbon taxes.
00:37:24.000 Carbon taxes are definitely going to fix everything.
00:37:27.000 Well, Orrin Kass talked about climate taxes.
00:37:29.000 Orrin Kass, the Manhattan Institute, we've had him as a guest on the program.
00:37:32.000 He talked about carbon taxes back in 2015 in National Affairs.
00:37:36.000 Here's what he wrote.
00:37:37.000 An efficient tax on carbon emissions would require a valid estimate for the cost such emissions impose on society.
00:37:43.000 But any estimate of the social cost of carbon, which is the marginal cost of an additional ton of CO2, involves what economists call an integrated assessment model that stacks assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions.
00:37:53.000 The result of such modeling is not much better than a guess.
00:37:56.000 Calling these models close to useless, says MIT economist Robert Pindick, is generous.
00:38:00.000 To model a relationship between carbon emissions and costs, IAMs, this would be the integrated assessment models, must first assume a climate sensitivity.
00:38:09.000 That is how quickly the climate will respond to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
00:38:12.000 The IPCC offers a range of assumptions, from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, and that range has actually grown wider in recent years.
00:38:19.000 So in order for us to assess the cost, we have to determine how sensitive is the climate, we have to determine how big the damage is going to be from a climate change, And that, in turn, actually depends on the level of damage to be done to existing structures.
00:38:32.000 So, for example, we've seen a lot of stories in the recent past.
00:38:35.000 Hurricanes are becoming more financially ruinous.
00:38:38.000 Hurricanes are doing more damage.
00:38:40.000 Well, maybe it's not that hurricanes are doing more damage.
00:38:42.000 Maybe it's there's more stuff in the way.
00:38:44.000 Really?
00:38:45.000 Like, if you're building more expensive stuff and then the hurricane tears down more expensive stuff, it turns out it's a more expensive storm.
00:38:51.000 And this is particularly true on the coast, where the hurricanes happen.
00:38:55.000 The rebuilding of New Orleans is a perfectly great example of what we should not be doing as a society in the aftermath of a massive natural disaster.
00:39:02.000 Like, you know what we should do?
00:39:04.000 Right where there was a giant levee breach, and thousands of people died, we should probably build that city right back up again.
00:39:10.000 Instead of saying, well, you know what?
00:39:11.000 Why don't we do what people have historically done, when their town gets washed out, and, you know, not build a town there again.
00:39:17.000 Instead, we decide to rebuild New Orleans, and then when the levees are breached again in 20 years, we'll talk about climate change again, instead of recognizing that certain eventualities are happening to the climate, and perhaps the best mitigation factor would be to take other measures.
00:39:29.000 And maybe the best innovation would actually be a better way of curbing carbon emissions.
00:39:33.000 So as I talked about yesterday on the program a little bit, when it comes to carbon emissions, it seems worthwhile to discuss the fact that our carbon emissions have dropped radically in the United States thanks to fracking, which the left hates.
00:39:43.000 Natural gas has taken over for coal, which the left hates.
00:39:47.000 Pick a solution.
00:39:48.000 If you actually care about this stuff, you have to be in favor of fracking.
00:39:50.000 If you care about this stuff, You have to be in favor of nuclear power.
00:39:54.000 Instead, what the left really wants is a bunch of redistribution of wealth and alarmism in order to push for redistribution of wealth.
00:39:59.000 Why do you think we don't trust you?
00:40:01.000 If you want to base this on moderate assessments you can fulfill, then we can discuss solutions and costs and benefits.
00:40:06.000 But if you just say, climate change is happening, and if you deny that we ought to have a massive global carbon tax that no one else will apply except the United States, then you are a denier.
00:40:15.000 Then you don't go after yourself, dude, because honestly, that has no relation to reality.
00:40:19.000 Okay, time for a couple of things that I like and then a couple of things that I hate.
00:40:24.000 So, things that I like today.
00:40:26.000 We won't do a couple, do one.
00:40:27.000 So, there's a new movie from the Coen brothers on Netflix.
00:40:31.000 I do love that Netflix is actually now commissioning Full-scale films that are interesting.
00:40:36.000 So I am not the world's biggest Coen Brothers fan.
00:40:39.000 I like No Country for Old Men. 0.95
00:40:41.000 I like Fargo.
00:40:42.000 But I'm not the hugest Coen Brothers fan by any stretch of the imagination.
00:40:46.000 They have a new kind of compendium film out called The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.
00:40:51.000 And it's basically six short stories that have no relation to each other, except that they all happen in the Old West.
00:40:58.000 Some of the stories are good.
00:40:59.000 Some of them are bad.
00:41:00.000 Some of them are funny.
00:41:01.000 Some of them are kind of tragic.
00:41:03.000 All of them are basically the Coen brothers' nihilistic sensibility.
00:41:06.000 Life doesn't mean anything and then you die.
00:41:08.000 So that's kind of messed up, but there's some elements of it that are really great.
00:41:13.000 The opener, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, a lot of people don't like it.
00:41:15.000 I thought it was really funny as a parody of Westerns.
00:41:18.000 Here's a little bit of the preview of The Ballad of Buster Scruggs.
00:41:22.000 The Ballad of Buster Scruggs People are so easily distracted.
00:41:33.000 So I'm the distractor with a little story.
00:41:37.000 People can't get enough of them.
00:41:39.000 Because, well, they connect the stories to themselves, I suppose.
00:41:44.000 And we all love hearing about ourselves.
00:41:48.000 So long as the people in the stories are us.
00:41:54.000 But not us.
00:41:56.000 This'll tell the tale.
00:42:01.000 So some of this is really good.
00:42:02.000 You know, it's frustrating because some of these are really not great, but there are elements of this that are pretty... I would say of the six stories that it tells, three of them are good and three of them are really mediocre.
00:42:14.000 But if you have a short attention span, it's really kind of fantastic.
00:42:17.000 And it's cool that Netflix is commissioning creative projects like this.
00:42:20.000 So that's kind of neat.
00:42:21.000 Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
00:42:27.000 Thing that I hate, number one, you know, there are a bunch of people who say that when it comes to transgenderism and the debate about use of pronouns and the definition of gender and all this stuff, that it has no real world effects.
00:42:38.000 Yesterday, I told you the story of what happened in a local gym near me, where a bunch of Orthodox Jewish women go because they want gender segregation. 0.94
00:42:46.000 For Jewish law reasons and for modesty reasons, they don't want to exercise in front of men, nor do they want to see naked men or anything of the like.
00:42:52.000 A transgender woman came into the locker room, refused to go into the private area and basically threatened to sue if they did not allow this man to unclothe himself in front of these Orthodox women. 0.68
00:43:02.000 The Orthodox women started dropping their memberships.
00:43:04.000 The gym could do nothing about it because they were afraid of legal liability.
00:43:07.000 There are real world consequences to this kind of stuff.
00:43:09.000 And we talked yesterday about trying to force doctors to perform surgeries That have no actual bearing on health or not, right?
00:43:17.000 I mean, which is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
00:43:19.000 Well, now there's another story that is just a shocking story from Walt Heyer of The Federalist.
00:43:24.000 He reports about a Texas divorce case, which now pits a mother who dresses her six-year-old male child, James, as a girl, and calls him Luna, against James' father, whom she's accusing of child abuse for refusing to treat James as a girl.
00:43:36.000 So the kid's six years old, and mom wants James to be Luna.
00:43:40.000 James wants to be James when he's with dad.
00:43:43.000 But weirdly enough, he wants to be Luna when he's with mom, because mom wants him to be Luna.
00:43:46.000 Now mom is trying to sue dad and claim child abuse, because dad won't go along with this nonsense.
00:43:52.000 This stuff is going to become more and more common.
00:43:55.000 There are real-world consequences to all of these discussions.
00:43:58.000 It's so funny.
00:43:59.000 For the left, it's always like, well, what if we just change this fundamental social standard?
00:44:02.000 This won't hurt you in any way.
00:44:03.000 We heard this about gay marriage, right?
00:44:04.000 Gay marriage won't hurt you in any way.
00:44:06.000 You're married to a woman. 0.81
00:44:07.000 You're a man, you're married to a woman. 0.98
00:44:08.000 How does my gay marriage hurt you?
00:44:10.000 I said, well, it doesn't, but it does change the social standard of what marriage is and how we teach marriage to kids.
00:44:15.000 And that sort of teaching does have implications for the behavior of children.
00:44:18.000 If I don't want my kid to engage in a same sex relationship because I'm the parent and I think it is more healthy to engage in a heterosexual relationship with someone that they can have kids with. 0.71
00:44:29.000 Right, because I think that that is the ideal.
00:44:32.000 And now I'm supposed to teach my kids something?
00:44:33.000 That has a public policy ramification for me.
00:44:35.000 It has a public policy ramification for me if you now want me to invite a gay couple into my synagogue, violating my religious scruples, or into my religious school, violating my religious scruples, right? 0.99
00:44:47.000 There are public policy consequences to hot-button social issues. 0.97
00:44:52.000 Pretending otherwise is just foolishness.
00:44:56.000 Again, if you just wanted to say, gay people get married, there's no imposition on anybody else, if that's a rule you want to hold to, I am all with it, man. 0.98
00:45:01.000 Do whatever you want to do.
00:45:02.000 You want to go to your church, your liberal church, and get married to a member of the same sex? 0.60
00:45:06.000 Your problem.
00:45:07.000 It's a free country.
00:45:07.000 I don't really care.
00:45:08.000 I mean, I care on a religious level, but on a public policy level, certainly do not care.
00:45:12.000 But I am not going to stand by while you change full-scale social standards and then mandate that I teach my child something.
00:45:19.000 This is why I always say, when it comes to transgender folks, If I'm in a conversation with a transgender person, I'm not going out of my way to use their biological sex when I talk with them.
00:45:29.000 But if you're asking me about public policy, I'm not going to lie and pretend that biological sex does not exist.
00:45:34.000 And people take this as a lack of sympathy for folks who are transgender.
00:45:38.000 It's not a lack of sympathy for folks who are transgender.
00:45:40.000 These people are suffering. 0.93
00:45:41.000 These people have a serious, serious disorder.
00:45:43.000 But it is also not helpful to engage a country in a wide scale violation of biological standards in order to supposedly quash the feelings hurt that people are feeling because of the disorder.
00:45:57.000 You can't do that.
00:45:59.000 And I love the assumption that because I disagree with you about the forced feeding of gender terminology, because I disagree with you about the violation of basic freedoms for hundreds of millions of people in favor of a false perception of reality of a few, that because this is the case, I somehow lack sympathy for people who are suffering.
00:46:19.000 It's just that there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
00:46:24.000 Okay, so I'll tell the story in the least indicative way.
00:46:29.000 So I spoke at a university pretty recently, in the last few months.
00:46:33.000 And at this university, there was an exchange that took place where a transgender person came up and asked about transgenderism.
00:46:40.000 And we had this exchange, and the transgender person, who's a transgender woman, meaning a biological male who believes that he is a woman in a male body, and has had surgeries and hormone treatment and all the rest, this person got up and asked me about transgenderism.
00:46:52.000 We had a back and forth, the exchange did not go as the transgender person wanted, and the person became very emotional and rushed out of the room.
00:46:59.000 I personally reached out because this person was obviously suffering.
00:47:02.000 I personally reached out to this person.
00:47:05.000 I had the people who were filming the event cut that part out of the tape because I didn't feel like there would be anything in it for there's nothing good that can come from it.
00:47:13.000 I don't want anybody feel humiliated or bad when they go to my events.
00:47:15.000 That's not the goal of the events.
00:47:17.000 We cut it out of the tape.
00:47:19.000 I had coffee with the person the next day to make sure that this person was okay.
00:47:22.000 This isn't a lack of sympathy.
00:47:24.000 When you're discussing public policy and you mistake public policy discussions for lack of sympathy because we disagree, it gets really ugly really quickly.
00:47:32.000 And it's nasty politics at its worst.
00:47:34.000 Okay, one more thing that I hate.
00:47:37.000 So as I mentioned briefly earlier, It's really funny how certain biases in American society and global society get a lot of play.
00:47:44.000 Islamophobia.
00:47:45.000 Racism.
00:47:46.000 Antisemitism always sort of takes a back seat because it's old.
00:47:48.000 We don't want to talk about antisemitism.
00:47:49.000 Like, come on.
00:47:50.000 We've been doing that for like thousands of years.
00:47:52.000 It's boring at this point.
00:47:53.000 Only one problem.
00:47:54.000 When it comes to actual real-world bias and real-world hatred and real-world stereotyping, you don't need to scratch beneath the surface very far to find antisemitism.
00:48:03.000 It's so funny.
00:48:03.000 People in the U.S.
00:48:04.000 talking about racism, they're like, ooh, dog whistles.
00:48:06.000 That's where we see racism, really.
00:48:08.000 We can't point to specific behavior all that often.
00:48:10.000 When we do, everybody agrees it's bad.
00:48:12.000 We can't point to specific behavior all that often and say, you know, that was really racist.
00:48:17.000 Instead, it's, that's a dog whistle.
00:48:18.000 That's a dog whistle.
00:48:20.000 You know who doesn't dog whistle? 0.92
00:48:21.000 Anti-Semites, who come out, right out, and say anti-Semitic things.
00:48:24.000 There's a new poll from CNN.
00:48:26.000 There's a sweeping new survey in Europe.
00:48:28.000 More than a quarter of Europeans polled believe Jews have too much influence in business and finance.
00:48:33.000 That's not dog whistling, gang.
00:48:35.000 That's just anti-Semitism.
00:48:37.000 Nearly one in four said Jews have too much influence in conflict and wars across the world.
00:48:41.000 Europe, always great to the Jews. 1.00
00:48:43.000 One in five said they have too much influence in the media.
00:48:45.000 The same number believe they have too much influence in politics.
00:48:49.000 Meanwhile, a third of Europeans said they knew little or nothing about the Holocaust, which happened within the living memory of a lot of people.
00:48:56.000 The mass murder of some six million Jews in lands controlled by the Nazi regime.
00:49:00.000 Those are among the key findings of this new CNN report.
00:49:04.000 So while we talk about all different forms of bias, it turns out that the most durable form of bias continues to be anti-Semitism.
00:49:11.000 And I love all the people who say they're not anti-Semitic, but the Jews control everything. 1.00
00:49:16.000 A few people said they personally have an unfavorable attitude toward Jews.
00:49:20.000 Across seven countries in the survey, only one in ten people said they did, which is pretty shocking.
00:49:24.000 The figure rises to 15% in Poland and 19% in Hungary.
00:49:28.000 So that's 20% of people in Hungary saying, yeah, we don't like the Jews.
00:49:31.000 Like, right out, straight up. 1.00
00:49:32.000 Jews suck, right? 1.00
00:49:34.000 We're not going to worry about that. 1.00
00:49:36.000 In every country polled except Hungary, significantly more people said they had a favorable opinion of Jews versus an unfavorable opinion.
00:49:42.000 In Hungary, favorable to unfavorable was 29% to 19%.
00:49:45.000 So Hungary, if you're a Jew in Hungary, you might want to think about, you know, getting out of there. 1.00
00:49:50.000 The poll also put a spotlight on European attitudes toward other minorities.
00:49:56.000 And it's pretty obvious how open this stuff is.
00:50:02.000 I love this.
00:50:03.000 You know, one of the ways that you can tell if people are anti-Semitic, like a kind of trick question is, how many Jews do you think there are?
00:50:10.000 Because people who are deeply concerned about the Jews think that the Jews are like a huge percentage of the world population.
00:50:15.000 It turns out that the Jews are a tiny percentage.
00:50:17.000 There's like 13 million Jews worldwide.
00:50:19.000 As a percentage of the population, it's nothing, right?
00:50:21.000 As a percentage of the population, we're talking significantly under 1% of the population worldwide.
00:50:27.000 No.
00:50:28.000 They were off by a factor of about 100.
00:50:30.000 that the world is more than 20% Jewish.
00:50:32.000 No, they were off by a factor of about 100.
00:50:35.000 0.2% of the world's population is Jewish.
00:50:38.000 In fact, Israel is the only country on planet Earth where more than 2% of the population is Jewish.
00:50:45.000 So, anti-Semitism continues to be the more storable hatred and also the hatred people will ignore.
00:50:50.000 As we saw yesterday, when it turns out that over the weekend there was a guy whose name was Mohamed Mohamed, who shouted Allahu Akbar while trying to run down two Jews in the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles, which I know quite well, having All right. 0.97
00:51:07.000 Well, we will be back here tomorrow to talk about all the latest news.
00:51:13.000 Have a great rest of the day.
00:51:14.000 We'll see you here tomorrow.
00:51:15.000 Be here or you will miss your assigned listening.
00:51:17.000 Come on.
00:51:18.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:51:19.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:51:24.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
00:51:30.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
00:51:34.000 Edited by Alex Zingaro.
00:51:35.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
00:51:37.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
00:51:39.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.