All Episodes
Jan. 5, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
41:56
Ep. 49 - The Dictator Cries -- Because You're Just So Evil

Ben talks Obama's gun control executive orders, his staged presser complete with weeping, and Will Smith's boy wearing a skirt. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Here we are out here in California, and it is raining cats and dogs, the skies are weeping, and so is the President of the United States.
The angel, the messiah, is shedding tears.
The tears that cure cancer, and apparently gun violence, as well as suicide.
We'll talk about all of it, plus something I particularly hate on this very Tuesday.
I am Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
I'm not political.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
I'm not political.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
I'm not political.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
I'm not political.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
I'm not political.
This is the Ben Shapiro.
He's back from his vacation.
He was, of course, in Hawaii for a prolonged period of time, and people were complaining about his vacation costs.
It costs, I think, $71 million over the course of his presidency for his vacations, and all I can say is money well spent.
I wish we had spent that kind of money for the entire seven years that he has been the President of the United States to keep him far away from me playing in the surf and Eating the surf and turf and doing whatever it is that he does over in Hawaii.
But the President of the United States, unfortunately, is back.
And President Obama, upon coming back, he says that he's going to push gun control.
So, it's important to understand what exactly the President of the United States was doing today.
So, over the last 48 hours, the President said he was going to release these big, vast, powerful executive orders on gun control.
And last night, Monday night, he revealed some of what these gun control proposals were going to look like.
And if you were an advocate of gun control, if you thought this was going to be full-scale gun confiscation, well, this came as a pretty large disappointment because the truth is that they sort of Carve around the edges of gun control, but they're not really big.
They don't really do anything very strong.
They're dangerous, and I want to explain why they're dangerous in one second.
But I think it's important to understand that President Obama basically put out there a bunch of weak tea gun control proposals, and then he did a press conference that was the most egregious, pathetic, disgusting display of presidential arrogance and nastiness That I have ever seen.
I mean, it truly was an amazing display, and we'll go through that.
But first we have to talk about what exactly is in these gun control proposals, these executive actions President Obama is going to take.
So there are really three problems.
With President Obama's gun control proposals.
Most of his gun control proposals, as I said, are very weak tea.
It's like hiring additional ATF agents.
Those are the firearms, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms agents to enforce the law.
And hiring new agents to do the FBI background checks.
No one cares about any of that.
The proposals themselves are also a little bit vague and that's where the danger lies.
So Obama makes these proposals and then there's enough wiggle room that his executive agencies could really do damage.
So let's talk about what this damage looks like.
The first thing is he is supposedly going to expand background checks So President Obama lied, as he is fond of doing, and when we do his press conference we'll see him lie.
The President of the United States said that in order to stop gun violence, he characterizes, of course, terrorist attacks like Paris and San Bernardino as acts of gun violence, right?
It's never the terrorist's fault, it's never the criminal's fault, it's always the gun's fault.
In fact, as we will also see, President Obama talked about the epidemic of suicide being the result of guns.
As though people aren't going to commit suicide if you take away their guns.
But President Obama says that he is going to cure gun violence.
How?
By expanding background checks.
He tells one very big lie here, and it's important to debunk it.
There is no mechanism in the United States by which you can buy a gun online without a background check legally.
It doesn't work that way.
If I buy a gun online, it is shipped to a local gun store, a federally licensed firearms dealer, I go in, they do a background check on me, and I am background checked.
According to federal law, that's how it works.
So whenever you hear people say, well, without Obama's action, you could just buy a gun online, not true.
Nothing has changed with regard to that.
Also, federal gun shows, the so-called gun show loophole, there is no such thing as a gun show loophole.
If you go to a gun show and you buy from a federally licensed firearms dealer, they will do a background check on you.
What the left means when they say gun show loophole is they mean if I, an individual, let's say I was moving out of the country and I needed to sell my guns, and so I went to Lindsey over here and I said, Lindsey, you want to buy my gun?
And Lindsey said, sure, I'll buy your gun.
That would now have to go through a background check according to President Obama.
Now, that doesn't sound like a big deal until you realize the only way for the government to enforce that law is one of two things has to happen.
Either Lindsey has to go commit a crime, in which case the background check didn't stop the crime, obviously.
Or, number two, Lindsey and I both have to be in a gun registry.
There has to be a federal gun registry and the government has to know where every single gun in the United States is.
Otherwise, how would they know I'm selling a gun to Lindsey?
Unless they're asking me every year or so, how many guns do you have?
Where did your guns go?
How did they get out there?
Guns are not public.
It's not like a car.
When you sell a car, the car's on the road.
The cops can see it.
When you sell a gun in the United States, the gun, especially in states like California, is not public.
Most of the time, it's at home.
And even if it is public, you don't see the serial number on the gun.
If I'm carrying around a gun, it's not like the gun has a big license plate number on it.
So the only way for the government to tell if a gun transfer has taken place is if they are constantly auditing individual Americans as to whether they have guns or not.
And that's a very scary proposition, because there's only one real reason that the government would actually want to know how many guns you have and what kind of guns you have, and that's to take them away from you.
That's really the only reason that the government would ever want to know the answers to that question.
So that is problem number one.
The expanded background checks really mean a universal gun registry.
Obama won't admit that, but that's really what it means.
Number two, President Obama proposed that we are going to get rid of barriers to reporting supposed mental illness to the FBI.
So the way it works right now is under HIPAA, which is the Health Privacy Authorization Act, you are not supposed to, if I'm a doctor, I am not supposed to reveal to the government details of your medical care because that is your privacy, right?
I mean, I'm not supposed to tell them that you've had a hysterectomy and I'm not supposed to tell them if you're on Prozac.
This is not the government's business.
As a general rule.
So what Obama has done now is he says that it's actually the cynicism here is breathtaking.
President Obama, the White House, they say they want to quote, remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment.
How do they want to do this?
They want to do this by allowing your doctor to report you to the FBI.
How this removes the stigma around mental illness and treatment is beyond me.
If I'm somebody who may or may not suffer from mental illness and I want to buy a gun, now the last thing I'm going to do is tell my doctor that I have a mental illness.
I'm not going to go in for treatment if I want to buy a gun.
But basically, the Department of Health and Human Services has now issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA-covered entities to provide to the National Database limited demographic and other necessary information about individuals.
What's interesting about this is that they specifically say that we don't mean that we're gonna tell the FBI that you're taking Prozac.
We just mean demographic information.
They don't specify what that information looks like.
So, how it would actually stop mentally ill people from getting guns is beyond me.
It's already against federal law for me to obtain a gun if I've been under psychiatric hold, 72-hour psychiatric hold, or if I've been involuntarily committed at any point.
If any of those things happen, I cannot obtain a gun in the United States legally.
Okay?
It just can't happen.
But President Obama plans to expand that, either that or he's lying, and this is just him throwing out politically popular things that already exist, and acting as though Americans don't know that they exist, which is also a possibility.
Finally, Obama says he wants to spend more money investigating so-called smart guns.
Now, smart guns, here's the thing about the left proposals on gun control.
A lot of them sound nice, but have no basis in reality.
So universal background checks.
Sounds awesome!
If we had a great background check system, and it would catch everything bad that anybody ever did, and it worked quickly and efficiently, and it didn't deprive law-abiding people of their guns, would be great, right?
Well...
The government isn't God.
They don't have that kind of database.
When it comes to smart guns, the same thing is true.
A smart gun is supposedly this kind of gun where you grab it and you use your fingerprints on the grip in order for the gun to fire.
So if I leave my gun lying around the house and my daughter grabs it, she can't fire it because she doesn't have my fingerprints, right?
We can set it up for my wife.
We can set it up for me.
There's only one problem.
This technology does not exist.
There is no such thing as a reliable smart gun.
Smart guns are unreliable, they malfunction routinely, it takes them up to 20 seconds to activate after you try to activate them, which is way too much time if you're in any sort of bad scenario.
They deactivate and reactivate, so if I'm carrying a gun around in a concealed carry state and I'm costed by a mugger or something, 20 seconds is not enough.
It's just, it's too much time.
And the whole point of carrying a gun is that, is the immediacy of having a gun.
So these are the major problems with President Obama's gun legislation, gun regulations.
Okay.
All of this is a little bit weak, right?
If you were somebody who thought Obama was gonna go full-scale Australia, confiscate all the guns, full-scale Britain, take all the guns, declare the Second Amendment, no longer an abeyance, we're gonna take all of it.
He didn't do that.
He didn't do that.
But he acted like he did.
So today, President Obama does a press conference.
When President Obama, at this press conference, he drags out all of the bodies of all the people who've been killed in acts using guns and then he proceeds to stand on them.
This is something that I truly despise.
When people suggest, when people suggest that I don't care, about dead kids at Sandy Hook.
If I disagree with them on their idiotic gun proposals, I find that personally offensive.
You're suggesting I'm a bad person because we disagree on what the proper measures should be for stopping situations like Sandy Hook.
I don't think additional gun laws would have stopped the crazy guy from getting the gun and killing the kids.
I think, for example, that armed security at the school would have stopped the guy from shooting the kids because they would have shot him.
But, according to President Obama, that means I don't care enough about the dead kids at Sandy Hook.
This is exactly the debate that I had with Piers Morgan in January 2013.
Piers happily is no longer on the air, partially because of that interview.
But in that interview, I said to Piers Morgan that you're a bully.
You stand on the graves of the kids of Sandy Hook to push your agenda.
Obama does that, and he just, he brings out a plethora of graves, and he stands on them.
At one point, as you'll see and we'll talk about, President Obama starts tearing up and crying.
Are they crocodile tears?
Are they real?
If they truly are real, then he's emotionally unstable.
Let me just say that.
Because people who cry, just as a man, men who cry in public when talking about political situations, like a shooting that happened four or five years ago, that is either calculated or it is unstable behavior.
And we used to recognize this in this country, right?
Edmund Muskie is a guy who was the governor of, I think it was Minnesota, and he ran for president in 1972, and Edmund Muskie was running in New Hampshire, and he started crying over something during a rally, and it basically ended his candidacy.
We used to be that men were the strong silent types.
Now, if a man cries, it makes him better off.
Remember, presidents...
Something to note about politicians crying.
Usually when they are crying, they are lying.
When President Clinton was crying over Monica Lewinsky, that's because he was lying.
When Hillary Clinton was crying in New Hampshire in 2008 over her supposed victimhood at the hands of Barack Obama and the mainstream media, it's because she was lying.
I don't trust politicians, and I don't trust...
Call me crazy, I don't trust guys who break down in tears on a regular basis when talking about situations like Sandy Hook.
And President Obama, this is too pat for me.
And if it's not too pat, then I thought he was Captain Logic.
I thought he was Captain Spock.
You know, the idea that he's just gonna get up there and he's gonna start weeping, we'll get to all of that in a second, but first we have to get to the part that's really outrageous.
President Obama says so many contradictory things in this press conference that I really wanted to take it from the beginning and we'll stop and start it because there really is so much here.
President Obama...
was introduced by the father of one of the kids who was killed at Sandy Hook.
And you can see, Obama has his, for people who subscribe at Daily Wire, you can see that he has his backdrop of human props behind him.
He has his puppets behind him.
And he does this for Obamacare, he does this for gun control.
He's constantly surrounding himself with normal, everyday Americans, right?
These normal, everyday Americans that lend him a patina of credibility and decency.
And if you don't believe me, it's because you don't care about these people who are suffering, who are standing behind me.
And it's a cynical ploy.
I mean, that's what charities do when they're trying to raise money on television, right?
They show all of the poor, bedeviled children of Sudan, and then they say, we want you to give money.
It's an emotional appeal.
It's not a logical argument, but that's what Obama's gonna do.
He's going to make the claim that if you disagree with him, it's because you're evil, and even worse, you make him cry.
You make him cry, right?
Not Adam Lanza.
You make him cry.
Because that's really what this is.
Okay, so here is the father who's, I guess, one of the administrators at Sandy Hook, introducing President Obama, and then we get to President Obama in what is easily the most cynical and degraded presidential press conference that I have seen certainly since President Clinton suggested that he did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Let's play it.
Many of the folks in the Gun Violence Prevention Coalition, including Sandy Hook Promise, have had numerous meetings with Vice President Biden and President Obama and their top advisors to address this issue.
But we can't do it alone.
And the President can't do it alone.
The thing is, every gun-related death is preventable.
Okay, let's pause at that right there for a second.
Every gun-related death is preventable?
Are you out of your mind?
Every single gun-related death is preventable?
Really?
Because there's still gun-related deaths in Australia and Britain where they banned all the guns.
This is nonsense.
Every gun- I mean, you literally have to worship government.
Government has to be God for you to believe this.
Right?
If you really believe every gun-related death is preventable, why would you- It's patently insane to say this, but let's continue.
And we need your help.
We need everybody engaged in this.
President Obama made a promise as an elected official and a promise as a father that he would do everything in his power to protect our nation's children, to make our communities safer, and curb the loss of life to gun violence in America.
So today, we celebrate another example of how President Obama and Vice President Biden continue to keep that promise.
The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people.
We are not inherently more prone to violence.
But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency.
It doesn't happen in other Advanced countries.
Okay, let's pause it for a second right there.
First of all, you do, we debunked this many times on the program, you do see mass violence in other places around the globe.
The reason that Obama and the left constantly talk about mass shootings as opposed to just shootings is because mass shootings are the only statistic that have gone down in Australia and Britain after the gun ban.
Right?
Mass shootings have gone down.
Gun violence has actually not gone down as much as it has in the United States during the same period when gun ownership was rising dramatically in the United States.
So Obama trots out these kind of hackneyed, ridiculous statistics in order to prove his case that if you were rational, if you were decent, even than rational, if you were just a decent, okay human being, if you didn't desperately want to see children murdered in the streets, you would agree with him.
And that's where he goes next.
The President: It's not even close.
And as I've said before, somehow we become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.
And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized partisan debates.
Okay, let's pause it.
The reason it's become a polarized partisan debate is because everything that he says is a lie.
When President Obama says we've become numb to mass shootings... Okay, folks, was anybody numb to what happened in Sandy Hook?
Did anybody watch 20 kids get shot by a crazy person and say to themselves, ah, no biggie.
That's just the cost of having guns in the United States.
Did any single person in the United States say this?
Anyone?
No, of course not.
But Obama is attempting to draw a moral distinction between himself and all of his political opponents.
People like me who believe that guns in the hands of responsible people keep children safe.
Okay, I have a two-year-old child.
The reason I have guns in my home is to protect the two-year-old child, not because I want a gun used against the two-year-old child.
When President Obama says this, the whole goal here is to proclaim that anybody who is on the other side is not just wrong, they are immoral, they are bereft as a human being, they have no soul.
And Obama just, it gets deeper and deeper and more and more egregious.
Despite the fact that there's a general consensus in America about what needs to be done.
There is not, by the way.
The polls show no general consensus.
That's part of the reason why on Thursday I'm going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence.
Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion.
I'm not on the ballot again.
I'm not looking to score some points.
I think we can disagree without impugning other people's motives or without being disagreeable.
We don't need to be talking past one another.
But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it.
Okay, let's pause it right there.
Okay, he just, in that one sentence, overthrew the entire purpose of what he's saying, right?
He says, we have to get together, we have to unify, we can have respect for people on the other side, but we do have to have a sense of urgency.
The implication being, if you disagree with him, you have no sense of urgency.
The implication being, if you disagree with him, you don't care enough about the dead kids.
And let me say something about the dead children in Sandy Hook and Chicago and all over the world.
President Obama cares less about the dead kids in Chicago than any president that I can remember in my lifetime.
This president has done nothing to stop the deaths in Chicago.
Murder rates in every major American city are up under this president.
The president of the United States, whenever he says, I care about the kids, this is the president who is willing to shut down the American federal government so that your tax dollars and mine would pay for women to kill their own children in the womb.
Don't give me the I care about kids routine.
When you want to confiscate my tax dollars so that you can use them for somebody else's abortion, and when you want to confiscate my gun and leave my kid at the mercy of criminals who want to kill them, meanwhile doing nothing about the actual causes of gun violence in the United States, including gang violence, including the breakdown of family.
It's just, it's beyond sickening.
But this is the cynical game that President Obama plays.
Now, I don't know whether President Obama knows better or whether he truly in his heart is this self-centered.
Maybe he... I think maybe he is.
Maybe he is this self-centered.
He believes that he is on the side of the angels and all of his opposition is on the side of the devils.
And because he is the angel that cries, and as you'll see when he sheds tears, we have to... And you can see the media today.
The response to all of this was, Stop making Obama cry!
Give him what he wants!
Get rid of the Second Amendment!
He's crying!
Can't you see he's crying?
He cares!
I don't judge the validity of my right by a demagogue who cries.
That's not how this works.
And it gets worse.
Here's President Obama some more.
The President: In Dr. King's words, we need to feel the fierce urgency of now.
Because people are dying.
And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do.
No longer suffice.
That's why we're here today.
Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one.
Male Speaker: This is what this is about.
None of his executive actions would have stopped Sandy Hook.
None of his executive actions would have stopped Aurora or San Bernardino or any of this stuff.
It's all about the applause.
That's what this is.
President Obama cares deeply and only about how he is perceived as a human being and he believes that he must be perceived as a fighter on behalf of the left and thus he's going to stand there and he's going to demagogue the issue.
And it's just, it's, it's...
It's hard to watch this because it really is stomach churning, but we'll take as much as we can before we skip to the part where he actually breaks down in tears, Susan Sarandon style.
Here we go. - To prove that the vast majority of Americans,
Even if our voices aren't always the loudest or most extreme, I care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children.
Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start.
I've said this over and over again.
This also becomes routine.
There's a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do.
I believe in the Second Amendment.
It's there, written on the paper.
It guarantees a right to bear arms.
No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law.
I know a little bit about this.
Okay, pause it for a second.
Okay, and everybody's laughing.
Oh, he taught constitutional law.
First of all, as someone who got an A-plus in constitutional law from Harvard Law, this man knows nothing about constitutional law because constitutional law has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Anybody who spent five seconds learning about Supreme Court rulings knows constitutional law has nothing to do with the Constitution, and Obama doesn't care about the Constitution.
Listen to how he characterizes that, right?
The characterization is really what's central here.
The emotion, right?
If we can't care enough about a little boy like Daniel, who doesn't care about kids who are killed by evil maniacs?
Who doesn't care about that?
It's so sickening.
But then he turns immediately from that to, and now I have to do the ritual, I guess that I care about the Second Amendment too.
Right?
That's the ritual to him.
He's not passionate about it.
He finds it to be an obstacle to him.
And then he said, I'm not going to take away your guns.
I mean, I've seen the Constitution.
I just can't take away your guns.
I don't know where these crazy people are getting this crazy stuff about taking away your guns.
You know where I'm taking my lead about you taking away my guns, Mr. President?
It's because you four separate times, on four separate occasions, have said that you would like to use as a model Australia's full-on gun confiscation.
That's where I'm getting it from.
So don't give me this, oh, I don't know, it's all these crazy people, same people who think that I was born in Kenya.
All those same people.
They're the ones who think that I'm gonna come take their guns.
No.
We think you're going to take our guns because we can see, just from this press conference, that you would love nothing better than to take our guns.
And you watch, gun sales are gonna skyrocket in the wake of this.
I mean, I'm going this Sunday, and I'm going to pick up an AR-15 this Sunday, and so is one of my friends, okay?
We're all gonna go to the gun store, and we're gonna buy guns and ammo because of President Obama.
Honest to God, I should have bought stock in some of the gun manufacturers when this man was elected.
Because there's been nothing better for the gun manufacturers than presidents of the United States.
But President Obama, the way that he speaks so dismissively of the Constitution, and get ready for this, because what you're about to hear is the litany of demagoguery.
President Obama uses his violations of the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment.
He uses all of those to justify his violations of the Second Amendment.
You're about to see it.
It's kind of incredible.
Basically, he just admits his full-scale agenda, which is, yeah, all these things, these rights that you have, none of them are absolute.
None of them really matter that much.
We have to make common sense curbs on these particular rights.
And therefore, if I decide that we ought to just grab guns, then we'll grab guns.
Now remember, President Obama doesn't actually have the balls to stick with it, right?
He doesn't have the balls to go through with his full-scale gun confiscation because he knows the American people wouldn't stand for it.
So what he actually does is really weak, but what he says is really strong.
So here's President Obama saying, yeah, you know, I know about the Second Amendment.
I've seen the Second Amendment.
I've seen it.
It's on paper.
It's right here.
It's on paper.
But... Let's continue.
I get it.
But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.
I mean, think about it.
We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech.
Well, not all of us.
But we accept that you can't yell, In a theater.
When he's off script, pause it for a second.
When he says this.
First of all, the fire in a crowded theater example, which everybody uses all the time.
First of all, fire in a crowded theater was used in a case that has basically been overturned by the Supreme Court.
The original case about fire in a crowded theater was about Woodrow Wilson, president during World War I, prosecuting a couple of people who were passing out anti-war leaflets.
And the Supreme Court ruled it was okay for him to arrest them because their leaflets, which were saying that we should get out of the war, they were basically like shouting fire in a crowded theater.
The Supreme Court has spent the last century basically overruling that and saying it's nothing of the kind.
So first of all, he's citing bad law.
Second of all, when the president says fire in a crowded theater, how is gun ownership anything like shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Gun ownership is not inherently dangerous, and it's not inherently nihilistic.
These have nothing to do with one another.
And beyond that, when President Obama says we all believe in the First Amendment, well, there are those of us like me who don't just doubt your sincerity with regard to the Second Amendment, Mr. President.
We doubt your sincerity with regard to the First.
After all, you're the douchebag who went in front of the United Nations and said that the future will not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.
You're the guy who had somebody arrested for making a YouTube video because you had to cover up your own incompetence in Benghazi.
You're the guy who put Dinesh D'Souza in jail for a crime that none of your buddies would have gone to jail for.
You're the person who has suggested over and over and over again that some level of censorship is necessary with regard to preventing Islamophobia.
We're supposed to trust you?
You've surveilled journalists more than any president since Woodrow Wilson.
And we're supposed to trust you as the great keeper of the constitutional flame?
President Obama continues along these lines.
There are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people.
We cherish our right to privacy.
Well, we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane.
Okay, let's pause it right there.
Okay, let's talk about the metal detectors before you board a plane.
The fact is that when it comes to metal detectors before you board a plane, that is of doubtful constitutionality.
Okay, the idea that everyone in the world has to go through a metal detector before you get on a plane, That does not seem to me to fall under rational search and seizure.
Right?
Where is the reasonable cause, reasonable suspicion for search and seizure?
This is why I believe in privatized airports, for example, because then it's up to the private company whether they get to do this or not.
But again, President Obama, he says that he respects your right to privacy.
You know, Captain NSA over here, who wants to check all your metadata, he respects your right to privacy.
So clearly, you should respect him with regard to the Second Amendment.
You should trust him with regard to the Second Amendment.
And it continues along these lines.
Because he is systematically encroached on every amendment, he says, well, so why can't we do that with the Second Amendment, too?
After all, you've accepted me doing it thus far.
Why not accept me doing it with Amendment Number Two?
And he continues, and pretty soon we'll move to the full-on headline moment where President Obama breaks down into tears of pain and rage, but we'll finish up with President Obama here and then move to that.
People like doing that.
But we understand that that's part of the price of living in a civilized society.
And what's often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree.
A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.
Today, background checks are required at gun stores.
If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely, And responsibly.
This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment.
Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn't been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation.
Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates apparently before this meeting, This is not a plot to take away everybody's guns.
You pass a background check, you purchase a firearm.
Okay, let's pause it there for a second.
He says you pass a background check, you purchase a firearm.
Okay, nobody's actually arguing again with the current background check rules.
Nobody has a problem with the current background check rules.
He's expanding them, and again, this is where he's playing both sides.
So he's saying, we can do something to stop shootings, but again, the only thing that would actually stop shootings in the way that he's talking about is a full-scale gun confiscation, but don't worry, I'm not gonna do that.
So he's living this kind of never-never land, where he's got a solution in mind, the solution he's proposing is not that solution, but if you oppose the one he's proposing, then you must be against the total solution.
So it's all ridiculous.
Let's fast forward to when President Obama actually breaks down in tears because he doesn't get his way, and let's talk about what exactly is going on here, because the left is just fighting mad.
They are very, very upset with anybody who suggests either insincerity on the part of the president, or suggests that this is inappropriate.
In any way, here's the president talking about Sandy Hook, at which point he loses it.
-- taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.
Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.
And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.
We'll pause it here for a second.
It happens on the streets of Chicago, but he never talks about those ones, right?
Because that would actually require him to propose solutions for what happens in Chicago, like, don't pay mothers to have babies without the father's present.
Like, break down the gangs through better policing, right?
These are things Obama doesn't want to do.
I want to point out something here.
The people standing behind President Obama here, all of these are relatives of people who were shot, right?
When he's talking about all of this, do you see any of them crying?
Any of them?
These are the actual relatives of the people shot.
President Obama, he pauses and he knows the cameras are on him.
He knows that he's on national television.
And he pauses, and he waits, and he takes his time.
This is not a...
I'm sorry, I don't believe the sincerity, number one, because I don't believe...anybody who believes...all these people who are criticizing John Boehner for crying too much, now look at President Obama and say what an authentic, decent man he is because he's crying over all of this, and if you doubt his significant feelings on the inside, then it must be because you're uncaring about what happened, and that's, of course, the trap.
The trap here is that he cries, and then we're irritated by the crying because we feel like he's a politician who's pushing an agenda on the back of his feelings, and then if you criticize that, then it must be that you don't care enough.
That's the little game that they play here.
Well, let's just pretend for a second that he's actually sincere.
How in the world does that make his argument any better in any way?
But this is the world in which we currently live.
President Obama is breaking down in tears, one, because it's politically beneficial for him to do so.
It makes him look caring, even though for seven years he did nothing on guns, nothing.
Remember, the President of the United States had a veto-proof majority.
He had a 60-vote majority, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and he had a majority in the House for the first two years of his presidency, and didn't touch guns, right?
He had the ability to hire ATF agents for the last seven years.
He didn't do it.
So, is he crying over spilt milk there?
Is he crying because it's politically advantageous?
Is he crying because he didn't get his way from Congress and he's angry he didn't get his way?
I think the president knows how this game is played.
I think he's a smart man, and I think he's a deeply cynical man.
I'm not suggesting it doesn't sadden him or anger him.
I'm just saying that to take it to the next level where you're crying on national television, that is a conscious decision.
This is not a man who lo- When's the last time you saw Obama lose control of his emotions?
He just got so emotional he couldn't contain himself.
When's the last time you saw that?
Ever?
So this whole thing is a cynical ploy, and the left, which is playing it off like it should make any difference.
Honestly, it doesn't make any difference whether it's cynical or not, but this is what's truly irritating.
The media is having a full-on masturbation fest over President Obama crying.
They're saying, oh well, he shed tears.
That means he cares.
Give him what he wants!
I have a two-year-old.
When she cries, she doesn't get what she wants.
He's the President of the United States.
When he cries, that doesn't mean that he gets what he wants.
And yet, that seems to be the logic behind all of this, is that he ought to get anything that he wants, because after all, the President should never cry.
He's a divine angel sent from the heavens, with his tears to cure cancer, and his tears to cure gun violence, and his tears to cure suicide.
It really is too much.
This is the part that's galling.
Democrats have been proposing gun control for decades, for my entire life.
Longer than that.
And President Obama is the first one that I've seen to go on TV and do the crying routine about, you don't care about these dead kids unless you agree with me.
And then he wonders about the breakdown in our politics.
This is why there is a breakdown in our politics.
I do not respect this president as a human being.
I don't respect him as a man.
And I certainly don't respect him as a leader.
Because he does this routine.
It is vile, vile and despicable for him to shed tears because his opponents disagree with him and those tears to be falling on the graves of kids who were killed.
It's just, it's exploitative to the extreme.
It's deeply exploitative and it's just, it's gross, as gross as it's possible for gross to be.
All right, so now let's do a little bit of things that I like and things that I hate, because I've expended enough words over this would-be dictator.
One last note, because I just have to now.
The President of the United States, when he sheds these crocodile tears, people are saying these are crocodile tears.
I don't think they're crocodile tears.
I think these are the tears of a tyrant, and the tears of a tyrant means that he has nothing to lose.
And he basically said that, right?
I'm in my last term.
I have nothing else to lose.
I can do what I want.
Well, so far, something is keeping him in check.
Something is keeping him in check, but I don't know how long that's going to last.
This is what frightens me about this president.
I don't know how long.
The President Obama of these relatively limited executive orders triumphs over the President Obama of this press conference.
I don't know how long it is before President Obama decides to really go for it, really do everything that he's been wanting to do.
I don't know if he's being held back by electoral concerns, I don't know what's holding him back, but if he ever decides that he doesn't want to be held back anymore, things could get very ugly, very quickly.
So those tears, those are tears that you should fear, not tears with which you should sympathize.
Because a man who believes that he has ultimate power, and that his enemies are immoral, is a very, very dangerous man.
And that is the President of the United States, and that's how he thinks about other Americans.
During this press conference, he blamed the NRA, Congress, the American people, and the Constitution for shootings.
He did not, at any point, blame criminals or terrorists.
That's really all there is.
Okay, let's talk about things that I like and things that I hate.
Okay, so one thing that I like, a piece of music.
is Brahms has a string quintet, or piano quintet, rather, that is fantastic.
I know it's pretentious.
Brahms Piano Quintet.
Check it out.
It's really great.
It's great listening.
And if you want something a little more obscure even than that, then there's a great piano quintet by a guy named Dognani, and that's really terrific.
And if you want something that's not so obscure, then how about a movie?
So there's a movie that is...
What's the movie called?
All the King's Men.
The original All the King's Men.
Not the one with Sean Penn.
The one with Broderick Crawford.
Great movie.
You want to see a demagogue in action?
What a demagogue looks like?
How a demagogue gains power?
That's what that movie is.
All the King's Men.
Terrific movie.
Best picture 1946, I think.
And it's a really, really good movie, so check that one out.
Alright, things that I hate.
This one comes to me courtesy of Lindsey, who does the makeup, and also sends me crazy things on the internet.
And one of the crazy things that she sent me on the internet was this new ad campaign that is a Louis Vuitton ad campaign, I guess?
And it's a women's ad campaign.
Now, this women's ad campaign has a peculiar star.
Who is the star of the women's wear campaign for Louis Vuitton?
Well, let's bring up the picture, if we can.
The star is Jaden Smith.
That's Will Smith's kid.
It's Will Smith's male child.
It's masculine child, right?
That's Will Smith's kid.
And then we have another photo of him with a group, modeling the women's wear.
And there he is wearing a skirt and a leather jacket and it's all androgynous and the idea is you can't tell that he's a boy, you can't tell that he's a girl.
There's a reason they put him all the way in the background there.
What's honestly kind of sad about this is that you have to... Will Smith has to sit around pretending that he thinks all of this is okay because we have such a politically correct, stupid society that when your boy dresses a girl, we're supposed to think that this is something wonderful.
I know Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are doing the same thing with Maddox, one of their kids.
She's a girl.
They like her to dress as a boy or let her dress as a boy.
Okay, there is something that is deeply disturbing and dangerous about your kids cross-dressing on a regular basis.
Okay, there's a reason that masculine and feminine exist, and one of the goals of you as an adult is to guide your child into the lifestyle that is going to match their biology.
And it turns out that Jaden Smith, there's no evidence he's androgynous, there's no evidence that he's transgender, there's no biological evidence of any of this, he wasn't a girl who was turned into a boy or any of that.
But you are teaching kids.
You are teaching teenagers.
You are teaching people who are confused about their hormones and about what gender is because you're not fully testosterone-filled as a man until you hit your teenage years, really.
You're teaching kids who are little That sex is just something that you play around with, that gender is something that you play around with, and it really screws people up in a major way.
And this is not doing anybody any favors.
Are there any women?
It's just, it's what the advertising business wants to gain attention for what they're doing.
Because that's how they make money, is by gaining attention for what they're doing.
But there needs to be some sort of market backlash.
There really does.
There need to be a number of people who look at this kind of thing and they say, look, I'm not buying Louis Vuitton products so long as they have young men modeling women's wear.
That's just not my thing.
If they want to do that, they can mark that to their crew.
But this idea that we're going to mainstream and normalize what is abhorrent and abnormal behavior, and it is... I'm sorry, the whole idea that, oh, guy dresses in a dress, it's no big deal.
No, it actually is a relatively big deal because it is an element of mental illness.
When men want to dress in skirts, that is because there is a problem there.
It is not because skirts are more comfortable.
If they are doing it because it's more comfortable, they're wearing kilts.
The idea that men are wearing women's clothing It's a statement, and it's clearly a statement.
It's either a political statement or it's an element of mental illness, and either way it is an attempt to break down the very important and civilization-founding distinction between male and female.
So this is something that I hate and I despise the advertising industry for doing all of this, but of course the advertising industry is largely run by a lot of people who are Well, you're also confusing a lot of young people about what it means to be a man or what it is to be a woman, and that is something that does have to be taught.
There are a lot of people who are gender bending in the advertising industry.
And most of all, there are a lot of people who are leftists in the advertising industry.
And so they see this as pushing forward a wonderful, great, and decent agenda, something that makes life more comfortable for all of their friends.
Well, you're also confusing a lot of young people about what it means to be a man or what it is to be a woman.
And that is something that does have to be taught.
That's something that culture has a role in doing.
Because the fact is this.
If we left everybody to their own devices with regard to sex, you would end up with male and female.
They would just be uncivilized.
The idea of the civilized male and the civilized female, that requires civilization.
So if we're going to have civilization, you have to maintain that distinction.
Once you wipe out that distinction, all you get is mass chaos, confusion, and upset, which is the reason, by the way, why suicide rates are on the rise for young people and will continue to be on the rise, because as you confuse young people, they don't know what to do.
Adults have done a great disservice to people.
His parents are doing a great disservice to him by humoring this kind of garbage and forwarding this kind of garbage.
It really is disturbing and problematic.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Export Selection