Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 30, 2015 - The Ben Shapiro Show

35:55

Ep. 32 - Obama Says The Dumbest Thing He's Ever Said. Again.

Obama heads to Paris for his Climate Change Summit, where he proceeds to say unbelievably stupid things; the left blames pro-lifers for the Planned Parenthood shooting; plus, the latest installment of Things I Hate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Howdy everybody, we are back from the Thanksgiving weekend.
	And I had a great weekend, not thinking about politics and really just enjoying my family.
	And now we're back, and it's a new day, it's a bright new day, and that means President Obama has said something intensely stupid.
	Stupider than anything that he's said, even in the recent past, because every new day is like a bright, beautiful sunrise of President Obama's stupidity.
	We'll get to it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	You tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
	All righty, gang, we have returned, and there is so much to talk about.
	We'll get to the Planned Parenthood shooting that happened over the weekend and a thrill went up all the lefties leg when this happened.
	We'll explain why they were so excited and why, in fact, they shouldn't really be all that excited about it.
	We will also get to Donald Trump who continues to be Under attack from both the mainstream media and from the right.
	Folks on the establishment right seem to think that the only way to take Trump down is to watch him sort of take himself down.
	It's not going to happen.
	I'll explain why.
	But we start in Paris, where President Obama has descended from the clouds, high atop Mount Olympus, to deliver a message to global terror.
	The President of the United States is attending a climate change panel.
	This is the big climate change panel, the big climate change meeting that we've been waiting for all our lives.
	Day after day, we've been waiting for President Obama and the rest of these global bureaucrats to get together in mahogany-paneled rooms and gather around the thermostat, pray, and then increase the temperature by a couple of degrees so as not to emit carbon.
	Well, President Obama started off with a speech at this climate change summit.
	Where they will sign a bunch of agreements that mean nothing because none of these developing countries that actually do a lot of the polluting, like China and India, are actually going to sign on to anything that would stagnate their actual economic development.
	Only we will do that because we are suicidal enough and stupid enough to do that.
	President Obama, he spoke at the very beginning, and it's important to know about President Obama.
	The man's arrogance is just breathtaking.
	I mean, breathtaking.
	The UN asked that all the global leaders would speak.
	And they said, if everyone can please keep their comments to three minutes, that would be awesome.
	Three minutes would be great.
	President Obama then got up and spoke for 14 minutes.
	Because that's what President Obama does.
	Because President Obama, He loves that little red light on the camera, and anytime it's on, he talks.
	I mean, he gets up in the middle of the night, he walks to the refrigerator, the light goes on, and he starts talking until somebody comes down and forcibly closes the refrigerator.
	When the light goes on, President Obama talks, and he doesn't stop.
	So President Obama started talking, and he repeated a line that we talked about last week, and I said it was maybe the dumbest thing he'd ever said.
	President Obama doubles down on the stupid in Paris, and he says this with regard to the climate change summit that is currently happening.
	And we salute the people of Paris for insisting this crucial conference go on, an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children.
	What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshalling our best efforts to save it?
	Okay, this is legitimately the stupidest thing any human being has ever said.
	And there's a long history of people saying stupid things.
	But like I say, every new day with President Obama is a new sunrise of stupidity.
	You wake up in the morning and you think, God, he can't possibly get any dumber.
	And then you wake up the next morning and you think, how could he have been so smart yesterday?
	Because it's just, I mean, it is incredible.
	Okay, first of all, he says that he thanks the people of Paris for insisting the climate change summit go on.
	I was unaware that there was a groundswell of support in Paris for a climate change summit, that as the bodies were bleeding out on the ground at the nightclub a couple of weeks ago, people immediately said, we must band together You know, they can—we will fight them on the shores.
	We will fight them in the mahogany-paneled hotel rooms talking about climate change.
	We must have our climate change summit.
	It's deeply important.
	We must.
	It must—no one did this, right?
	President Obama says that they did, and then he says it's an act of defiance against ISIS.
	Which just, what?
	An act of defiance against ISIS.
	Again, the people who are sitting around in their mud huts in Isisville, they're really sitting around and thinking to themselves, you know what?
	What we really have to stop is a bunch of these bureaucrats getting together and jabbering with each other, with translators, about how to destroy the global economy.
	We really need to, what we really need to make sure of is that they destroy, we can't let them destroy their own economies.
	We have to keep those, we must stop them from destroying their own economies and so we're gonna go kill a bunch of French people at a nightclub.
	The only thing more insane than that concept is what Obama said about that.
	It's an act of defiance.
	ISIS is sitting there and they're just, they're sitting around and they're so angry.
	You can just see them, they're grumbling in the caves.
	Ugh, we thought we had defeated them, but no.
	They have a climate change summit, damn it!
	Allah, what have you allowed?
	No one is doing this.
	There's not a single member of ISIS who has ever had these thoughts.
	But President Obama says that they've had these thoughts, and then he continued along these lines, and he says that we stand united in solidarity, not only to deliver justice to the terrorist network, but to protect our people, and we salute the people of Paris.
	He says, what greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshalling our best efforts to save it?
	Here's what you have to understand about President Obama and what he's actually doing with ISIS, and it's actually kind of incredible.
	And it's something the left likes to do, and it'll bring us to Planned Parenthood in a minute, but there is a commonality here.
	When John F. Kennedy was shot, John F. Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.
	Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist.
	Lee Harvey Oswald was an ardent communist.
	He tried to defect to the Soviet Union.
	He actually did defect to the Soviet Union.
	Then he came back after trying to defect to the Soviet Union and basically hating it there because it turns out Soviet lifestyles weren't great.
	He came back to the United States.
	Then a few days before he assassinated Kennedy, he tried to defect to Cuba.
	He went down to the Cuban embassy in Mexico and tried to defect to Cuba.
	He was a communist.
	Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist and he shot the president of the United States and he killed him.
	Jackie Kennedy, when she heard who had actually done this, when they captured Oswald, her actual quote, according to people who she talked to, and there were biographers who said this, Jackie Kennedy actually said, quote, "He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights.
	It had to be some silly little communist." She was upset that the guy who shot her husband wasn't some right-winger who had killed her husband over civil rights.
	He wasn't some racist conservative.
	It was, in fact, a communist.
	A silly little communist.
	Now, at the time, you have to understand, we were engaged in a global battle with the greatest threat that Western civilization had ever seen to that point, which was a massive communist empire that was expanding in all directions.
	But to her, the greater threat was civil rights here at home.
	To her, the greatest threat and the thing that her husband that she hoped, if he had to die, would have died for was, in fact, civil rights, was people marching in Selma.
	She wishes that somebody who had killed him, maybe if he'd been martyred for civil rights, then people would have sided with the civil rights bandwagon and more progress would have been achieved.
	But because it was some silly little communist, all that was going to happen is people were going to be more anti-communist and hate those communists.
	And we all know the communists are silly and unimportant, even though we were at the time, again, engaged in a global civilizational battle.
	President Obama is doing the same thing.
	President Obama basically feels like the people who got killed in Paris, you know, he just, he really regrets it had to be some silly little Muslim radicals.
	Why couldn't it have been some anti-climate change activist?
	Why couldn't it have been some pro-life person?
	Right?
	Why couldn't it have been just like an American conservative?
	Like an American conservative had gone into the Paris nightclub and shot up the nightclub in the name of, we're going to shoot up nightclubs now in order to prolong the oil-based economy.
	He would have been super happy, right?
	Because then all of a sudden there's this groundswell of support for fighting climate change.
	But it happens to be some Muslim radical.
	So what does Obama do?
	He says, no, no, don't worry.
	They're not Muslim.
	They're not even Muslim.
	ISIS is not Islamic, right?
	They're not Islamic.
	But instead of him admitting That it's Muslim radicals.
	At least Jackie admits it was a silly little communist.
	Instead of Obama admitting that ISIS is a bunch of Islamic radicals...
	Instead of doing that, the President of the United States does a magical sleight-of-hand transference procedure whereby ISIS becomes the people he wants them to be.
	They're actually created.
	They're transformed in magical fashion.
	He puts the curtain in front of them, and then when he removes the curtain, it's not ISIS anymore.
	The people who killed all the people in Paris are people who want to stand against climate change, and here he is, standing in defiance of all the people who would kill in the name of the oil-based economy.
	Which, of course, doesn't exist.
	Like, there's nobody who's doing this.
	So he just makes them up.
	He just completely makes them up.
	Out of whole cloth.
	He just makes them up because it's that important.
	He wants to fight climate change.
	And it annoys him.
	ISIS is a distraction for the President of the United States.
	Isis isn't really important.
	Isis isn't a global threat.
	Isis, we talked about this column at the time, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, who's an ideological equivalent of President Obama.
	They're on the same page.
	He wrote like two days after the Paris attacks, quote, sorry conservatives, when President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he's exactly right.
	Terrorism can't and won't destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might.
	That's what Paul Krugman—and Obama thinks that, too.
	He thinks global warming is what's going to kill us all.
	Now, the reality is, Obama doesn't really care whether global warming is going to kill us all, because there is no hard evidence to suggest that global warming is going to destroy all of Western civilization.
	We've had climate change for the entirety of the history of the planet.
	It will continue ad infinitum into the future.
	Even the best scientists can't explain the exact correlation between the level of carbon emissions And the extent of global warming.
	The best scientists can't explain the extent of global warming and whether that is better or worse for us.
	In fact, there's an international panel on climate change that has suggested that over the next 100 years, climate change will actually significantly help the globe because it actually creates more farmable areas.
	If it gets warmer, then a lot of the places that are too cold to farm right now actually become pretty good bread baskets because there's a lot of the planet that's uninhabitable because it's too cold.
	President Obama worries about the coastal cities, supposedly.
	But the reality is that they've built sea breaks in most of these coastal cities, and they could further.
	I mean, New Orleans exists below sea level.
	Idiotically, we should have moved it after Hurricane Katrina.
	But, you know, we built sea breaks there, and we continue to do that.
	We continue to build levees.
	But President Obama, for him, it's not really about climate change.
	Why is he so passionate about climate change?
	The reason Obama is passionate about climate change is because climate change is a cover for global redistributionism.
	Climate change is a cover for take Western civilization down a peg in terms of the economy and give all of our money to all the poor countries because Obama is basically a Marxist, right?
	And the fact is that if you look at What the people who push climate change say, they agree.
	in February, the executive secretary for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said this, quote, this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.
	Okay, first of all, this is not the first time in human history that we've intentionally transformed the economic development model.
	We had this for a hundred years.
	It was called the Soviet Union.
	It was an intentional transformation of the economic development model, right?
	But the left wants to do away with the two greatest forces in the alleviation of poverty in the history of humanity.
	Those two great forces, the oil-based carbon economy and capitalism.
	Those two things are the greatest forces for the alleviation of poverty ever created by man or God.
	The oil-based economy has lifted 50% of the globe out of dire starvation-level poverty over the last 50 years.
	And the left wants to do away with that.
	Because the problem is that even though we've lifted them up from dire poverty, then the developed countries have lifted this much.
	So they would rather that people who went from here to here, for people who can't see, people went from low to medium low, they would rather those people stay at low, as long as the people who went from medium to super high stay at medium.
	They want to lower the gap.
	It's the same way the left feels about income inequality.
	They don't care about poor people staying poor, they just care about medium people in terms of the economy becoming super rich, or rich becoming richer.
	They care about the gap.
	They don't care about the people at the low end.
	That's President Obama when it comes to climate change.
	That's his actual agenda here, and he said it.
	I mean, he said in his 14-minute speech today, That he wanted to, quote, reaffirm our commitment that resources will be there for countries willing to do their part to skip the dirty phase of development.
	Okay, it's not a dirty phase of development, meaning that when he says dirty phase of development, what he means is that there are countries, every time a country develops, you have to pollute a lot in order to develop quickly.
	Because if you want to expend more energy more quickly without environmental restrictions, you're going to pollute a lot.
	He says if they skip the dirty phases of development, we'll be there to pick up the pieces.
	Okay, the fact is you can't go from being a not-developed economy to a developed economy without the development part, right?
	You can't just go from one to the other.
	You can't just give somebody a wallet and say, okay, now you're rich.
	That's not how it works.
	This is why when people win the lottery, they immediately go back to being poor again if they were poor before.
	They don't know how to take care of money.
	In order for you to become a developed economy, you have to learn how a developed economy operates.
	You have to open your boards.
	You have to have certain capitalistic features in order for that to work.
	Now, if you want to say that we will reward them for being environmentally conscious, there's another way to do that, which is that we put sanctions on countries that are not environmentally conscious, right?
	We just don't trade with countries that decide to pollute up the wazoo, right?
	We could do that.
	But, and then that's a real incentive.
	We don't have to pay them out of our own pocket or anything like that.
	But President Obama wants to pay them out of our own pocket.
	That's the whole goal.
	He says he wants to make sure resources flow to countries that need help preparing for the impacts of climate change we can no longer avoid.
	He says poor island nations, we have to pay them so that presumably they can relocate even though, I don't know what global picture he has in his head where islands are moments away from becoming Atlantis and it's going to be, there's not going to be any steady and slow encroachment of the waters where people decide, okay, you know what?
	We're moving now.
	By the way, I don't know when this started.
	I think it's probably the last, really since World War II, this idea that human populations are not transient, that you settle in one place and that that's where you stay for the rest of time.
	This ignores all of human history, of course, because there are many, many, many cities that used to be thriving metropolises and no longer are.
	In the United States, we call them Detroit, right?
	I mean, this actually happens.
	I mean, there are cities in the United States that have been abandoned.
	New Orleans was abandoned after an environmental disaster.
	The population dropped by significantly more than 50% after Hurricane Katrina.
	And then we're stupid enough to send people back there with incentives.
	And they stay there.
	And then it turns out the environment wins in the end.
	President Obama wants to do that with the island nations as well.
	So this is President Obama over in Paris.
	And by the way, he says, what is our greatest foe?
	Our greatest foe, says President Obama, is cynicism.
	Not ISIS, not people who want to kill us.
	Cynicism is our greatest foe.
	One of the enemies that we'll be fighting at this conference is cynicism.
	The notion we can't do anything about climate change.
	Okay, so every time he says that, I sort of keep waiting for a superhero with a big C on his chest to bust through the back wall.
	I'm cynicism and I'm here to kill all of you.
	We're gonna fight cynicism.
	Our enemy is cynicism.
	Obama's used this phrase before.
	You've heard him do it a lot in domestic speeches, right?
	We have to fight cynicism.
	Why?
	Because Obama...
	He actually believes he's Jesus Christ.
	I mean, he comes and the unbelievers will be punished and they'll be sent to a burning, fiery hell.
	He's not even like a good version of Jesus.
	He's like a bad version of Jesus.
	He's like Jesus gone wrong.
	He's gonna come in and he's going to explain to everybody how it is.
	And if you disagree, it's because you didn't see the three stars in the east, right?
	And he didn't follow to the manger.
	And he's in the manger.
	And it's just, it's amazing.
	If you disagree with him, it's not because he's wrong, it's because you're cynical.
	It's because you've become too cynical to believe.
	You've become too cynical to believe.
	And if you just believed in Tinkerbell, the harder you clap for Tinkerbell, the longer she will live.
	And you can revive Tinkerbell, if you believe.
	I mean, there are those of us who enjoy Disney movies, and I have a daughter, and she loves Disney stuff, and I enjoy Disneyland, I love Disneyland, but I also realize the difference between Fantasyland and actual life.
	President Obama apparently doesn't.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, Other news over the weekend.
	There was a big shooting over in Colorado.
	I think it was four or five people killed.
	None of them inside the Planned Parenthood.
	It was all cops.
	There was a guy who was a complete nutjob who decided that he was going to go shoot up near the Planned Parenthood.
	And by shoot up, I don't mean do drugs.
	He was going to kill people near the Planned Parenthood.
	We know this guy's a nut because he is a nut.
	I mean, I'm not just saying he's a... Like, people on the left, they like to say that people who we know exactly why they're doing what they're doing, that they're nuts.
	They'll say that Islamic terrorists are nuts.
	I was talking to Candace, who works here, and Candace was saying earlier, she was at Thanksgiving, and somebody at her Thanksgiving table said, no, no, no, the ISIS terrorists in Paris were just nuts.
	When I say nuts, I don't mean like, it's nuts as in I disagree.
	When I say nuts, I mean like, psychiatrically.
	Having problems, okay?
	Like, has a medical problem.
	This guy, who shot up the area near the Planned Parenthood, this particular fellow lived in a shack, basically a one-room shack, in the woods, with no running water and no electricity.
	In 2015, he'd been convicted in the past and charged with being a peeping Tom, as well as throwing his wife, apparently, through a window.
	He'd also, all of his neighbors described him as a nut who scared their children.
	And he had registered to vote in Colorado, apparently, as an independent woman.
	Right?
	Like a political independent and also a woman.
	But the left decided that really this guy, he might need to shut up the area near the Planned Parenthood, not because he's a crazy person, but because we all need to shut up about Planned Parenthood.
	Now, I will say this.
	Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill.
	They kill unborn children.
	It's what they do to make their money.
	Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill that murders children.
	And they sell their products.
	And we have it on video.
	These are facts.
	This is not an exaggeration.
	This is not me gussying it up.
	This is not purple language.
	Planned Parenthood, if it were legal in most states, and now it's not legal in any because of the federal partial birth abortion ban act, but if it were legal, Planned Parenthood did do late term abortions, like final term abortions, up until the point of birth.
	Planned Parenthood has no problem with any of that.
	These are people who murder kids, and they are happy to do it.
	Okay?
	And they make money off of it.
	And then they sell their parts, and whether they sell the parts for profit or not is completely irrelevant to me.
	The selling the parts, I always thought that, and I've said this for literally months here, I always found it bizarre that people were so upset about the selling of the baby body parts.
	That seems wildly secondary to the actual killing of the baby.
	Like, how you dispose of the body parts afterward is of significantly less consequence to me than what you actually did to snuff out the life of a child, but You know, there were all these videos that came out, and here, for example, is one of the videos, the Planned Parenthood video, showing them openly discussing what they do with the baby body parts after they kill them and then carve them up.
	So we're oftentimes looking for liver and thymus.
	Are two of the most in demand.
	Yes.
	Excellent.
	Alright, here you go.
	So now this...
	Sean, can you help me out?
	I don't... So... I think this is lung, right?
	I don't think this is kidney.
	Yeah, these are lungs, because that's the trachea in the middle there.
	Okay, we don't have to watch more of this, but this is what they do, right?
	I mean, so this is on video.
	These are baby body parts.
	They're used for research.
	They kill babies.
	Okay, this is not inflammatory rhetoric.
	This is fact.
	Okay, people like me saying this, the left is now blaming for this not going and shooting up the area near the Planned Parenthood.
	So John Hickenlooper, who is the governor of Colorado, he went on national television yesterday and he blamed me and you and Carly Fiorina and the people who made these tapes for the shooting at the Planned Parenthood.
	Here's John Hickenlooper.
	The United States of America ought to begin a discussion looking at how do you begin to tone back the inflammatory rhetoric that In some ways it might be good for, I don't know, selling products in advertisements or whatever, but in some way it is inflaming people to the point where they can't stand it and they go out and they lose connection with reality in some way and commit these acts of unthinkable violence.
	Okay, so the idea is that if you hadn't seen any of these Planned Parenthood videos, this guy would be fine, dandy, living in the woods right now.
	What this does is it creates what we call a heckler's veto.
	Meaning that the heckler is the- sort of like the heckler's veto existed for the drawing of Muhammad.
	Right?
	If you know that if you draw Muhammad, somebody's going to come and shoot up the place where you're drawing Muhammad, then you shouldn't draw Muhammad.
	Right?
	We should stop you from drawing Muhammad because somebody will come up and kill you.
	So we have to stop you.
	Right?
	This is what is called the heckler's veto, meaning the person who violates all protocols and norms is now the person who gets to dictate whether you exercise your free speech.
	So the person who is the nut, who goes and shoots up the area outside of a Planned Parenthood, is now the person who gets to decide whether you do or do not speak up about facts about Planned Parenthood.
	And it's not just John Hickenlooper who is saying this, that it's inflammatory rhetoric, that it's people saying crazy things like Planned Parenthood kills babies.
	He's not the only one saying this.
	Planned Parenthood itself, there's an official on TV who's saying exactly the same thing.
	It's hateful, inciting rhetoric that is creating this whole problem in the first place.
	We've experienced so much hateful language, hateful speech.
	Such a negative environment has been created around the work that Planned Parenthood does around the idea of safe and legal abortion.
	And we've seen that across the country from all sorts of speakers in the last few months.
	I can't believe that this isn't contributing to some folks mentally unwell or not, thinking that it's okay to target Planned Parenthood or to target abortion providers.
	Okay, so that's Vicki Cowart, the appropriate name Vicki Cowart, who is saying that talking about Planned Parenthood is what is causing all of this to happen.
	There are a couple of things that are worth talking about when we get to these sorts of comments.
	First of all, the left has been doing this for literally generations, that every time somebody does something bad, they blame the right for it.
	Every time somebody, even somebody unassociated, somebody who's a complete nutjob does something bad, they blame the right for it.
	I mean, I mentioned the JFK assassination.
	The left, in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, tried to blame the right.
	The left actually tried to say that it was a climate of hate that had been created around JFK that allowed for Lee Harvey Oswald.
	Utter trash.
	They said the same thing about Jared Lee Loeffler.
	You remember when Jared Loeffler shot and wounded badly, Gabrielle Giffords shot her in the head in Arizona.
	They tried to claim that Sarah Palin was somehow responsible for this because she had a targeted district list, including Gabby Giffords' district, even though there was no evidence that Jared Loeffler had ever seen any of this.
	When it comes to, I will say this, however, There is, in fact, to be consistent.
	It is absolutely possible that rhetoric can drive violence, but it depends on what the rhetoric is.
	There's a difference between pigs-in-a-blanket-fry-em-like-bacon, which is apparently a common chant at some of the Black Lives Matter movements, which is openly calling for the death of cops, and rhetoric like Planned Parenthood kills babies.
	Me saying Planned Parenthood kills babies does not suggest that the solution is for you to go and kill Planned Parenthood doctors, right?
	Or for you to go and bomb a Planned Parenthood clinic.
	There's a difference between ISIS's rhetoric, which is, go kill Westerners, or Palestinian rhetoric, where you have an imam, we've shown video of it, holding a knife and stabbing the air and saying, go stab a Jew.
	There's a difference between that and By the way, Planned Parenthood also, they kill babies and we're funding it.
	There's a difference in level of rhetoric.
	And the way that you can tell the difference in level of rhetoric is by who responds to the rhetoric.
	If the only people that you can find to respond to the rhetoric are nuts, we should not pay attention to nuts who are quote-unquote perverting a cause.
	Because they're nuts, right?
	You don't pay attention to... They're nutty people who think all sorts of nutty things.
	And the idea that you have to be careful not to set off the nutbags, you have to be careful not to set off the loonies, this is something that I find utterly distasteful.
	And it's been applied to Islam also.
	John McCain says the same thing.
	John McCain actually said, over the weekend actually, John McCain said that Donald Trump, for example, his rhetoric was going to turn Muslims against the United States and you'd get more terrorism.
	Here's John McCain, Senator from Arizona.
	Well, I think it has an interesting effect of turning Muslims all over the world against the United States of America, which is 99 and 44, 100 percent people who practice an honorable religion.
	And by the way, the fact is that we can succeed here and ISIS is not that strong.
	But the longer they stay in power, the more this poison spreads and metastasizes from as far away as Afghanistan.
	Afghanistan, Africa, and other parts of the world.
	Sitting next to him, of course, is Lindsey Graham, who is just sort of sitting there nodding along, looking increasingly like the spokesman for Jabba the Hutt.
	You remember that guy with the big tentacle that wrapped around his neck?
	He sort of looks like that.
	In any case, the fact is that what John McCain says there is so silly.
	If rhetoric causes you to become a terrorist and kill innocent people, Right?
	Then it better be very, very strong rhetoric.
	And Donald Trump's rhetoric is not pushing rational people to being terrorists.
	What is pushing rational people to being terrorists is a full worldview that includes terrorism as part of the agenda.
	Right?
	That's what makes rational—there are a lot of rational people in ISIS.
	They're not all crazy.
	They're not all mutts.
	They are evil.
	But they are making rational decisions based on their view of the universe.
	To brush everybody off as nuts, and we do this very commonly in Western civilization, because we have this sort of psychopathological view of human behavior.
	All human behavior is driven by your pathology, you don't make independent choices, it's all just driven by your genetics and your environment.
	No, it turns out that people are capable of making decisions, and making rational decisions, so you have to look at what rational people do.
	So, here is the question.
	Does pro-life rhetoric lead rational people to go out and murder people?
	The answer is no, it doesn't.
	Because a huge percentage of the American population is pro-life, a huge percentage of the American population are not going out and killing abortion doctors.
	And the converse is true with regard to radical Islam.
	Radical Islam is an ideology where they are encouraging people to go out and kill Westerners, and you have a huge bulk of people who agree with the concept of going out and killing Westerners for various causes.
	And I think it's very important to distinguish between these two things.
	I think it's also important to distinguish between movements like Black Lives Matter that promote stuff that's not even factually true, and stuff like the anti-Planned Parenthood movement, which is promoting stuff that is factually true.
	Black Lives Matter is not saying a tiny percentage of cops are corrupt and racist, let's find them and prosecute them.
	Black Lives Matter is saying the entire infrastructure is corrupt and racist, let's redo the entire infrastructure.
	And what they're leading to, their behavior is not actually leading to cop murder, As much as it is leading to resistance to cops.
	Right?
	A rational person would respond to the rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and resist cops because cops are corrupt and racist.
	They wouldn't kill cops, but they would resist cops.
	And that you have seen en masse.
	You have seen big numbers of that.
	The pro-life movement wouldn't encourage people to go out and kill abortion doctors.
	It would encourage people to go out and protest abortion doctors.
	And that, in fact, you have seen.
	So you have to correlate the activity being called for by the movement with the actual activity of the movement.
	That's how you can tell whether an ideology is actually promoting violence or whether an ideology is just promoting its own ideas.
	So I think that it's important to point all of that out.
	And don't buy into all of this nonsense that if a nut goes crazy and perverts an ideology, that's the same as radical Islam and ISIS.
	It's not the same thing at all by any stretch of the imagination.
	I think that's an important point.
	Okay, so now we're coming near the end of the show and we're going to do our new segment, Stuff I Hate.
	It's the counterpart to Andrew Klavan's Stuff I Like, suggested, of course, by Lindsey.
	I also wanted to do Stuff I Like, but that would be significantly too positive for the show, so we can't do that.
	I will mention one thing that I do like in passing, because I do get a lot of people who ask me what books I'm reading and what I like.
	There's a Thomas Sowell book that I'm reading right now that's called Wealth, Poverty, and Inequality.
	That is excellent.
	You should go out and you should pick up a copy.
	All of Thomas Sowell's writings are terrific.
	This one is about global inequality, and he makes the point that everybody acts like global wealth inequality is something new.
	It isn't.
	It's existed forever.
	And he goes through the environmental causes and the cultural causes and the economic causes.
	And it really is quite good.
	Okay, now on to things I hate, which is wildly more entertaining than what I just said.
	And that is, okay, there was a tweet that came across my Twitter feed that nearly blinded me today.
	And this tweet came courtesy of New York, what is it, New York Magazine?
	It's not the New Yorker, it's New York Magazine.
	And they have a
	Lady who does photos for them named Annie Leibowitz and Annie Leibowitz does all of their kind of cheesecake photos of people who are unattractive and their new thing that they do is They they call things Let's just put it this way I want to show you the tweet and and for those of you who can't see I'll describe it to you in all of its gory detail, but the they put up a tweet and Let's just say this is example number three million two hundred seventy three thousand two hundred eleven in the destruction of the English language Okay, here we go
	And it says, "This Annie Leibovitz photo of Amy Schumer, Amy Schumer is the blonde overweight comedian who's the star of Trainwreck, is stunning." That's the word they use, stunning.
	And it is a photo of Amy Schumer in her underwear, no top.
	And she's sitting there looking kind of dazedly at the camera with her hair undone, not in a sexy pose at all.
	Looking like she's, as Lindsay put it, preparing for a bowel movement.
	She's sort of sitting there, sideways, with her hand on her knee, and her other hand holding a cup of coffee, and it clearly looks like she's not ready for this photo to be taken, right?
	It looks like it's done during the off minute.
	Right, like she was posing, and then she said, God, can someone get me a cup of coffee?
	And they brought her a cup of coffee, and then they took a photo as she was holding up the cup of coffee, and she looks like she's about to bitch out her assistant, right?
	She looks like she's staring off into the distance, like there's somebody who's done something mad- Okay, there are many reasons to hate this particular thing.
	The number one reason is not because she is particularly unattractive.
	She's no more unattractive than many members of the population.
	Somebody tweeted at me, is your wife perfect?
	And my answer is number one, yes.
	And number two, my wife doesn't make a habit of going around in just her panties with a cup of coffee and bent over so you can see every fat roll in her stomach, right?
	Which is what you can see there.
	And to count, because people can't see if you haven't subscribed.
	And folks, you really should subscribe just for moments like this.
	Although I may be making the opposite case depending on how you perceive this photo.
	There are one, two, three fat rolls that you can see coming off of her as she stares like she's been up all night, you know, at the camera.
	But what really gets me about this is not even the photo of her.
	It's clearly just a stupid photo.
	Like, a stupid photo.
	It's just dumb.
	Right?
	I mean, it's a dumb photo, and it's playing as high art, and I hate the destruction of standards.
	It makes me nauseous.
	I hate when the left says that things are magnificent art.
	It's not just, like Adele, it's not just a good song.
	It's the greatest song you have ever heard in your entire life.
	It is epic.
	It is all capital letters EPIC.
	It's the greatest song you'll ever hear.
	It's been downloaded 25 million times because she sings better.
	She is a better singer than Pavarotti.
	She is just the greatest singer you have ever heard in the history of humanity.
	I mean, she is like the Homeric sirens calling men to the distant shores to be drowned.
	It's not just a beautiful photo.
	They don't just say, here's a photo.
	It's a stunning photo.
	Well, okay, there are many definitions of the word stunning.
	Unless they're using the one where, like, you got hit in the face with a brick and it was stunning.
	Like, you were actually stunned by the photo.
	Then this is not, in fact, stunning.
	It's stunning in the sense that, like, a train wreck is stunning.
	Or, like, watching a butchered cow is stunning.
	But it's stunning.
	Right?
	The death of the English language here is what really bugs me about this.
	And again, You know, I can mock people how they look all day long, people can mock me, you know, it's school, it's childish and all of this.
	It's also funny, but it's childish.
	But what is not childish is the fact that she probably considers herself to be some sort of grand heroic art hero for doing this.
	Right, she considers herself, she's fighting the body shaming by sitting there and being unattractive.
	I mean, this is what she would be sitting, if she were sitting in a Starbucks, she would look like this, right?
	I mean, she's sitting in a Starbucks just with no clothes on.
	That's what this is.
	But this is art, right?
	This is art.
	And there are a couple of things they're doing here.
	One is, they're fighting the body shaming.
	They're fighting the body shaming.
	Okay.
	Ladies, let me just tell you something about body shaming for one second.
	Okay, men are attracted to women, and it doesn't really... For every pot, there is a lid, and it doesn't really matter, you know.
	Men...
	There was something where ISIS said that they wanted to restrict anything that would attract a man to a woman.
	And so I tweeted, so you mean everything, right?
	Because the fact is that men are just attracted to women.
	That's just the way that it is.
	And looks are important, but they are not everything, obviously.
	But the body-shaming movement has turned into, if a man says that he finds one woman more particularly attractive than another woman, if a man has taste, If a man, not even good or bad, he just has a taste, that means that he must be body shaming a woman, right?
	Amy Schumer should be your new standard of beauty.
	Lena Dunham should be your new standard of beauty.
	If, however, this were Heidi Klum getting naked, then that's objectification, right?
	If she were beautiful, it's objectification.
	If she's ugly, then she's standing up for new standards of beauty.
	You know, ladies, Annie Leibovitz, New York, you can define beauty any way you want.
	Men will always define beauty by how they have always defined beauty, which is what do they want to have sex with?
	You know, what do more men want?
	That's how men define female beauty.
	Just get used to it.
	This is called reality.
	I know it's unwelcome.
	The other thing about this that I don't like, they're redefining beautiful.
	They're also redefining stunning.
	They're just redefining the language wholesale.
	Stunning used to have a meaning.
	Stunning was like Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday.
	She was not naked and stunning.
	Not every naked woman is stunning and not every stunning thing is a naked woman.
	There are beautiful, beautiful women who don't do this.
	Right?
	There are beautiful women who don't do this.
	And I know my wife is beautiful without her taking her clothes off.
	It's more fun when she does, but she is significantly, she's a beautiful, beautiful woman with or without her clothes.
	And I know that because I married her before I saw her without her clothes off.
	So, you know, obviously there was enough there to attract me.
	So this is one of the things that just drives me nuts about the left is their manic insistence that the language be redefined to meet politically correct standards that don't conform to reality.
	So there it is.
	Things that I hate.
	And I promise you that tomorrow, a new sun will rise.
	President Obama will again emerge like the beautiful butterfly that he is from his cocoon with something incredibly stupid to say.
	And we will talk about it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲