All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:20
Ep. 135 - The Hateful, Suicidal Left Wants Your Guns

Ben talks guns, Trump, and the vaunted mailbag Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The left still seems kind of confused about why the Orlando terrorists killed 49 people at a gay club.
Just yesterday, the New York Times editorialized that the, quote, precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear.
The paper then blamed Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.
The Times isn't alone.
According to many on the left, Omar Mateen was an enigma wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in a mystery.
He might have been a frustrated gay guy.
He might have just been a run-of-the-mill religious fanatic.
Who knows?
It could have been anything.
Or maybe he was a jihadist who spoke regularly about being a jihadist and who made no secret about how he was a jihadist.
Here's Omar Mateen on the West.
He posted this on Facebook, in real time, as he was killing people.
Quote, The real Muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the West.
Here's Omar Mateen on ISIS.
Quote, America and Russia stop bombing the Islamic State.
You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes.
Now taste the Islamic State vengeance.
He then added, delightfully, In the next few days, you will see attacks from the Islamic State in the USA.
Finally, from inside the club, he wrote, I pledge my allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
May Allah accept me.
Here's what Mateen wrote on Islamic terrorism.
Well first he went in the club and he started shouting Allahu Akbar, which as we all know means I love Jesus.
The FBI investigated Mateen in 2013 after he boasted at work about ties to Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda.
The local sheriff actually moved him off duty at the St.
Lucie County Courthouse to a golfing community.
So, here's the thing.
If the media refuse to acknowledge the obvious, they can pretend everybody's equally likely to purchase a gun for purposes of shooting up a gay nightclub.
That means removing everybody's access to gun ownership.
Yours, mine, Lindsay's.
If they acknowledge that Mateen was obviously a jihadist, obviously, they'd also have to acknowledge perhaps the best calibrated government approach would be to target, say, jihadists, like the thousand of them in the United States.
There are a hundred million gun owners in the country.
There are far fewer people who brag to colleagues about how they want to join Hezbollah and Hamas.
Perhaps the problem is standards of evidence for prosecution, not standards for exercise of gun rights.
But no.
It's all a big conundrum, gang.
Who knows why he did all of this?
Grab Scooby, and let's head for the Mystery Machine.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show. - I tend to demonize people because they don't care about your feelings. - Okay, so here we are.
And if you want to subscribe, today's The Mailbag, so now's a good time to ask you to subscribe DailyWired.com.
Go there, subscribe.
You can be part of the vaunted Ben Shapiro Show mailbag, the greatest mailbag that ever was created by man or God.
It is an incredible mailbag, and you too could be a part of that.
Plus, you could see my smiling visage, and just as an added incentive, you could finally see what Lindsey looks like.
Lindsey, come here for a second.
Here's what Lindsey looks like.
I've gotten too many questions about this.
Okay, Lindsey, pimp yourself up.
Oh.
There we go.
My glasses!
There you have it.
That's what Lindsey looks like.
And yes, our viewership just doubled.
So, congratulations.
You've joined the Daily Wire.
And I won't make Lindsey dance or anything because that's sexist and terrible.
Okay.
Lindsey loves to dance, so maybe we'll make Lindsey dance later.
But only if you subscribe.
Okay.
Alright, so, it's been a terrible week, obviously.
It's been a terrible week for the country, it's been a terrible week for the political debate, and the Democrats just continue to be terrible because that's what they do for a living.
So, let's start with Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
Joe Manchin.
Uh, is somebody who actually is not totally anti-gun rights.
He's very upset because like all the Democrats, he thinks that if you're put on the terror watch list, your Second Amendment rights should immediately be removed.
The reason this is stupid is because to be put on the terror watch list, we don't know why you get put on.
We don't know how you get taken off.
And beyond that, nothing has been proved.
I mean, you haven't had a chance to actually face down your accuser.
You don't have any due process rights.
You have a constitutional right not to have your rights taken away from you without due process of law.
That's under the Constitution of the United States.
Democrats, though, would like to remove your right to purchase a firearm based on whatever the FBI says today.
Right?
There are 800,000 people, by the way, on the FBI terror watch list, including there were sitting U.S.
senators and journalists.
But the idea is that if you're on the terror watch list or the no-fly list, then therefore they never have to explain to you any of these things, but they can deny you your Second Amendment rights.
People who care about rights say, wait a second, if you're gonna prove a case against somebody, you actually have to prove a case against somebody, or at least maybe show a judge why the person is so dangerous they can't own guns, even if you haven't come up with enough evidence to convict them of a crime yet.
Joe Manchin, however, has a different problem.
His problem is due process itself.
He says due process is really screwing this whole thing up.
Here's Joe Manchin.
The problem we have, and really the firewall that we have right now, is due process.
Yeah.
It's all due process.
So we can all say, yeah, we want the same thing, but how do we get there?
If a person is on a terrorist watch list, like the gentleman, the shooter in Orlando, he was twice by the FBI.
We were Briefed yesterday about what happened.
But that man was brought in twice.
They did everything they could.
The FBI did everything they were supposed to do.
But there was no way for them to keep him on the next list or keep him off the gun buy list.
There was no way to do that.
Okay, the big problem is due process.
If we could just do away with this whole due process thing and just take guns from people randomly, well, that would be a lot easier, wouldn't it?
I mean, that would really solve all the problems that we have.
And Democrats are fully on board with this.
Chris Murphy is a senator from Connecticut.
Last night, he did a filibuster.
He held up some sort of spending bill in order to yell about gun control.
And finally, Republicans said, fine, we'll vote on your gun control measure.
Here's Chris Murphy talking about his great heroic stance in favor of taking away your gun and mine, so long as we end up on some sort of government list.
And he explains that the time has come to just end the Second Amendment.
Well, I've been up for about an hour after sleeping for two hours and we're going to work today to make sure that we have that commitment to bring these votes before the body.
As your reporter noted, it would be much better to be able to get a bipartisan agreement on this issue of keeping guns away from terrorists, but at the very least we have to have a vote.
Senator Feinstein has fairly dramatically modified her proposal to try to address many of the concerns that Republicans have.
And so it may be that if we put this measure on the floor for a vote, either at the end of this week or the beginning of next week, we may be able to draw enough support to get it passed.
I mean, the American public agrees with us that if you're on the terrorist watch list and you are not allowed to fly on a plane, then you certainly shouldn't be able to buy a dangerous assault weapon.
That's our ask, to get a vote on that proposition and an expansion of background checks.
Hopeful that we're gonna get that either at the end of this week or next week.
So to be clear about this, what he's suggesting is that if you're on the terror watch list, the new measure they're pushing, by the way, is if you've been on a terror watch list in the last five years.
The reason they're saying this is because Mateen, the shooter here, he was taken off the terror watch list in 2014.
So the FBI investigated him, decided they didn't have enough to go on.
And then they said, OK, well, we can't do anything with you.
And he bought a gun and he killed people.
So it wouldn't have mattered if he bought the gun while he was on the watch list, or off the watch list.
He was off the watch list by the time he died, and by the time he shot all of these folks at the gay nightclub.
But they want to broaden the standards, and so they want to get rid of the Second Amendment.
We already know they don't like the First Amendment.
They want to be able to prosecute people who are anti-climate change propaganda.
They want to be able to prosecute people who refuse to cater same-sex weddings.
So they don't like the First Amendment very much.
They don't like the Fourth Amendment, which is against unreasonable search and seizure.
They're very much in favor of violating your personal standards of liberty, depending on who you are.
They're not in favor of the Fifth Amendment to process rights.
I think we should probably start from the premise at this point that which amendments do the Democrats actually want to keep in the Bill of Rights?
It's sort of hard to figure it out at this point.
The reason that I think this is true is because the left has a tendency to project.
So in the leftist view, in the leftist view, The only people who deserve rights are people who agree with them.
The left thinks that's also true of people on the right.
You're about to see this puzzlement express itself.
Anderson Cooper did an interview with Pam Bondi, who's the Attorney General in Florida, and it's an egregious interview.
And you'll see, the very premise of the entire conversation is, People on the left believe that if you exercise your rights in a way they don't like, you shouldn't have those rights.
They can't understand why people on the right would say, you have a right to do something, we may not agree with how you're doing it, but you still have the right to do it free of violence.
They just don't get it.
So here's Anderson Cooper, and he got all sorts of props from the left for this, but this is really a terrible interview and a terrible indictment of the left.
I mean, it demonstrates that for the left, there's no such thing as actual rights.
For the left, there's just agreement.
Here's Anderson Cooper with Pamba.
I want to ask you, I saw you the other day saying that anyone who attacks the LGBT community, our LGBT community, you said, will be gone after with the full extent of the law.
That's exactly right.
I talked to a lot of gay and lesbian people here yesterday who are not fans of yours and who said that they thought you were being a hypocrite, that you for years have fought You've basically gone after gay people, said that in court that gay people, simply by fighting for marriage equality, were trying to do harm to the people of Florida.
To induce public harm, I believe was the term you used, in court.
Do you really think you're a champion of the gay community?
But do you worry about using language accusing gay people of trying to do harm to the people of Florida when doesn't that send a message to some people who might have bad ideas about it?
Anderson, I don't believe gay people could do harm to the state of Florida.
We're dealing with these.
But you argued that in court.
My lawyer argued a case.
The bottom line is that what he's saying here is really vile.
What he's saying is if you oppose same-sex marriage, you must be okay with jihadists murdering people in gay clubs.
That's what he's saying.
same-sex marriage, that would do harm to the people of Florida, since Florida society.
The hotline that you've been talking about on television is really vile.
What he's saying is if you oppose same-sex marriage, you must be okay with jihadists murdering people in gay clubs.
That's what he's saying.
He's saying that you're just the same as the jihadists, you just don't want to say so.
This is what the left doesn't understand about the right.
I oppose same-sex marriage.
I'm a religious person who thinks homosexuality is a sin.
I also think that in America, and in Western civilization, you have the right to have sex with whomever you please so long as it's consenting, and so long as the person is capable of consent, and you don't have to care what I think.
You don't have to care what I think.
The left can't understand this perspective.
They can't understand it at all.
Which is why, for the left, they will never allow a religious baker not to cater a same-sex wedding, right?
They will never allow that to happen because they don't like how you're expressing your freedom of religion, so it must be stopped.
They don't like how you're expressing your freedom of speech, right?
If you use freedom of speech in terrible ways.
If you say the n-word.
I think you're a pig and a disgusting human being if you use the n-word.
The left would prosecute you for doing that.
I wouldn't, because I think you have a right to say disgusting, terrible things under the First Amendment, because I don't have a right to crack down on you using violence for things that you say.
The left doesn't understand that concept.
For the left, there is just agreement, or there's fascism.
So, Anderson Cooper is actually projecting.
Pam Bondi is saying what all right-wingers say, which is, okay, we don't like homosexuality per se, we're not big fans of same-sex marriage, but That doesn't mean somebody has the right to go into a club and blow people away.
Right?
That person is disgusting and we have nothing but sympathy for the people who are killed.
Even if they're killed while doing things that we don't necessarily approve of.
Right?
I didn't like the cartoons by the way, Charlie Hebdo.
That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of jihadists going and killing everyone at Charlie Hebdo.
Right?
The left can't understand that.
The left doesn't like that.
So instead what they do is they project their own viewpoint onto the right.
Because the left thinks that you should not have the right to carry a gun because you're a right winger.
Because they think that.
They also think that we must think that you don't have a right to live if you're a homosexual.
This, of course, is absolute nonsense.
It's really damaging to the public discourse.
It's really damaging to the public debate.
Because, again, we can all hold the same standard, or at least we used to, which is, we can disagree without being in favor of murder.
We can all fight murderers together.
This is why the left would rather side with the people, quote-unquote, fighting Islamophobia, than side with the people fighting radical jihad.
Because if they're fighting, if they're siding with the people who fight Islamophobia, presumably, And those people are also siding with them on gay marriage, right?
There's an alliance.
I may not side with them on gay marriage, but I side with them on the right not to be killed.
So, it's amazing.
They'd rather side with the people who are with them on gay marriage for political purposes, or at least with them on political correctness for political purposes, but tolerate people who murder them.
They'd rather side with those people than the people like me who don't like same-sex marriage, but also say that radical jihadism has to be put in the ground.
So the left is really terrible on all this and this just proves it.
They don't understand how rights work.
Rights work.
The only reason rights exist is because we can disagree on the exercise of the right but still agree that there is a right to do these things that we disagree about.
Okay.
Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama are still struggling to figure out what exactly their strategy is to combat this.
Obama is headed down to Florida today.
I mean, it's not like San Bernardino where he waited for three weeks.
He's gonna head right down to Florida, and he's going to presumably say that we all need to give up our guns.
Hillary Clinton is very angry at Donald Trump.
She says that Donald Trump's ideas, namely a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States, more surveillance on Muslim centers in the United States, she says this wouldn't have stopped Orlando.
Here's Hillary Clinton looking So not one of Donald Trump's reckless ideas would have saved a single life in Orlando.
It's just more evidence that he is temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief.
This wouldn't have saved one life.
Nothing that Trump does would have saved a single life.
Okay, where did that logic go when it comes to her own gun control measures?
Nothing that she says about gun control would have saved any lives at all.
None.
None.
Zero lives would have been saved by what she's talking about.
Even removing the ability of people on the terror watch list from buying guns would not have stopped this particular situation.
He wasn't on the terror watch list.
Also, terrorists have a pretty good record of being able to go and find weaponry.
Right?
The Boston bombing was done with a pressure cooker.
We're gonna outlaw pressure cookers now?
I mean, this whole thing is silly.
And even Obama will admit this.
He'll say, it may not stop every shooting, but it'll save one life.
Okay, well, by that logic, Trump's measures are better.
And by the way, Trump's measures would have saved lives if we had implemented them when Daddy wanted to come over.
It turns out the father of this guy who immigrated to the United States is, in fact, a radical Muslim preacher, and he came over to the United States from Afghanistan, and we let him in anyway.
Hillary continues along these lines.
She says Trump's ideas are just terrible.
How do you build a wall to keep the Internet out?
A ban on Muslims would not have stopped this.
Neither would a wall.
I don't know how one builds a wall to keep the Internet out.
Everybody laughs.
I don't know how a wall would keep the internet out.
Well, I don't know, Hillary, since you condemned a YouTube video for the murder of four Americans in Benghazi.
I'm not sure.
Apparently, you think the same thing.
Apparently, you think that if the government shuts down free speech, then magically, there will be less terrorism.
You and your president, you think if you don't say the phrase, radical Islam, that there will be less terrorism.
Let's make one thing clear about Hillary and Obama, okay?
Hillary goes on here, and she's gonna... We'll play this one clip.
She says that she's gonna make identifying lone wolf terrorists the priority.
We have to be just as adaptable and versatile as our enemies.
As President, I will make identifying and stopping lone wolves a top priority.
Okay, so let's talk about that for a second.
How do you identify lone wolves if you refuse to acknowledge that connections with radical Islamic websites are the actual problem?
That the lone wolves all seem to hold in common this basic ideology?
How do you identify them?
How do you go after them?
And let's be straight, the Obama administration has done an unbelievably crappy job on this.
They've done a really, really terrible job.
From 1940—Bret Stephens said this in his column yesterday in the Wall Street Journal—from 1940 to 2000, there were 38 lone wolf attacks in the United States.
From 2000 to 2000, I think it was 2012, there were 12 lone wolf attacks in the United States.
From 2000 to 2000, I think it was 2012, there were 12 lone wolf attacks in the United States.
From 2012 till now, there have been over 50.
So what are they doing?
Why aren't they going after the Lone Wolves?
The answer is political correctness.
The answer is political correctness.
Even Chris Matthews, for heaven's sake!
He doesn't understand!
I don't get what Hillary's even talking about!
What's she even saying?
And we'll talk to Hugh Hewitt about it!
Let's talk about it!
Let's go!
I've got a hit list like that, Hugh.
My hit list begins with why did we go into Iraq?
My list, by the way, continues along your line with why we messed around with Qaddafi.
Why did we get involved with overthrowing a government without any idea of the bedlam to come?
And what side are we on in Syria?
Please tell me somebody, please tell me what we want to happen in Syria, because I don't get it.
I don't get Hillary's foreign policy in any of those three regards, but we all have our list.
I don't understand Hillary's foreign policy, but I still like Hillary.
I mean, it's too much to ask that I actually like the person I'm voting for, that I agree with anything.
When even Democrats are looking at Hillary and cross-eyed and saying, what are you talking about?
It makes things relatively difficult.
And every day, the delusion becomes stronger.
Because the left, on a fundamental level, cannot acknowledge radical Islam is the problem, because that would require that we stand up for our own civilization, and they don't like our civilization.
They believe all civilizations are equal.
They believe all civilizations are morally decent.
And the only thing that separates good civilizations from bad civilizations is poverty versus wealth.
And if you're wealthy, that means that you exploited the impoverished civilization.
So really, we can only have a fair, just universe if everybody is equal materially.
But that's not what drives people.
What drives people isn't your want for a house or your want for a car.
I mean, this guy had a job.
This guy had a house.
This guy had a wife.
Osama Bin Laden was a millionaire.
What drives people is not just having the rudimentary necessities of life.
What drives people to kill, and die, and murder, and protect.
What drives people to do things is what they believe is right in the world.
That's what drives people to do things.
This is why religion has been the single greatest unifying force and also the single greatest dividing force in the history of the world.
And leftism is a religion.
Leftism is a religion.
The fact is that what people are driven by is their need to impose order on what they perceive as a chaotic universe.
And so they find a framework in which they can fit that chaotic universe.
But Obama doesn't believe that.
And he doesn't believe there's any difference between the frameworks.
All that really matters is that you give ISIS jobs.
And so President Obama is very upset about the idea of having to say radical Islam.
And he keeps maintaining, we don't have to say radical Islam, it's a waste of time.
He's very upset with Donald Trump for saying radical Islam.
Here is President Obama a couple of days ago.
And let me make a final point.
For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase, radical Islam.
That's the key, they tell us.
We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.
What exactly would using this label accomplish?
What exactly would it change?
Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans?
Would it bring in more allies?
Is there a military strategy that is served by this?
Okay, let me pause you here for a second.
He goes along these lines for a little bit.
A question for him.
If he thinks that using radical Islam doesn't change anything, why doesn't he just use it?
Since it's true.
There's a converse question for him.
Why doesn't he just use it?
If he says that this isn't a military strategy, well, why is it a military strategy not to use it?
It either matters or it doesn't.
If you say that it doesn't matter, why not just say it?
Considering that it's true.
There's not one Muslim anywhere on planet Earth who becomes a terrorist because someone said the phrase radical Islam.
Not one.
That's not why people become terrorists.
See, Obama thinks they become terrorists out of economic despair.
There are a bunch of people on the left who think that people become terrorists because they're offended by American Islamophobia or some such idiocy.
The real reason that terrorists become terrorists is because they believe in an ideology of conquest over non-Muslim peoples and also because they believe that they can get away with it and forward the cause by killing civilians.
That's what they believe.
Okay, but this idea that you don't say radical Islam because it doesn't win the war.
Nobody said it's gonna win the war, but I guarantee you will lose the war if you refuse to acknowledge that the real problem here is rooting out an ideology and killing its adherents, not taking away my guns.
Not taking away my guns.
No, this is stupidity.
Taking away my guns doesn't do anything.
I mentioned this yesterday.
You know, I'm not somebody who's in the center of terrorism.
I live in Los Angeles.
But I know somebody, there was a guy in my community who was killed by a terrorist at LAX in 2002 at the El Al counter.
I was in Israel, I was an hour away from the Sparrows bombing in Israel in 2002.
We walked past the site, right afterward we'd been there an hour beforehand.
I went to school next to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Holocaust Museum, in the city, in Los Angeles, at Yeshiva University Los Angeles, YOLA, and when I went there, there was a guy named Buford Furrow, it was a major national story at the time, who drove past the Simon Wiesenthal Center, considered whether to shoot it up, saw there was an armed guard there, and instead went to the local JCC, also within driving distance of me, and decided to kill a bunch of people there.
So I'm not somebody who frequently engages with terrorism, and even I have had tangential Tangential experience with terrorism.
Right?
The idea that I'm supposed to give up my gun to people who can't protect me and refuse to protect me and crack down on the people who try to protect me is insane.
And they do.
They crack down on the FBI if it's Islamophobic.
They crack down on the CIA if it's Islamophobic.
They crack down on local police departments that report if a 14-year-old kid walks into a school with a device that looks exactly like a bomb.
Right, and then he invites him to the White House.
That's what happens if you don't mention radical Islam.
That's why people die.
Okay, so all of this leaves a big room to- it leaves a lot of broken fields running for Donald Trump.
It's an open field for him here, because the left has outed itself as horrifying in every way on this particular- I mean, they've now blamed this guy's self-loathing homophobia.
He was a gay Muslim, and so he must have hated himself because he was gay.
Okay, it turns out there are a lot of self-loathing gay people.
None of them go into gay clubs and shoot it up.
And they blame it on the fact that he could get a gun.
There are a hundred million gun owners in America.
None of them went into a gay club and shot it up.
Turns out there's one factor that sort of explains all of this.
So Trump has a lot of room to run here.
And Chris Matthews gives some advice to Donald Trump.
And it's actually not terrible advice.
I mean, he gets out, he closes the hell out of his shoe, and he explains, Donald Trump, here's how you should run, Donald Trump.
Let me explain to you how you should run, Donald Trump.
What's all this mean?
That Trump is doing something very wrong.
His attack on the judge, his call for an enlarged travel ban on Muslims, his failure to exploit the negative Inspector General's report on the Clintons' handling of email, his failure to counter her speech attacking him on foreign policy, all constitute a failure to stay in the game.
He's hitting in the wrong places, failing to strike in the right ones.
Politically, Trump's clearly in a slump, and for good reason.
He's not doing the job of Republican presidential nominee.
He's not uniting his party.
He's dividing it, leaving himself alone to confront the enemy.
Many would say the country's better off because of Trump's drifting off.
And that said, I for one would like to hear more of a Trump message that elevates the American political debate.
I'd like to hear more about the need to rebuild this country.
The cities, the subways, the railways, the bridges, the water and sewer systems.
And not just what was built in the 20th or even 19th century, but what we need to do to...
Well, we need to build.
We need to build more buildings.
We need to build a sewage system.
We need to build more waterways, like the aqueducts I saw when I was in Rome with my wife, Kathleen.
We went there, we saw these beautiful aqueducts.
I wish we had aqueducts like that today.
We don't have aqueducts like that today.
I was going to need Donald Trump to build the aqueducts, put a big giant T on the aqueducts along with the wall.
Donald Trump.
Well, what he's actually saying there, believe it or not, is pretty much right.
If Trump stayed on message, if Trump stayed on message, put aside all the idiocy about infrastructure.
If Trump stayed on message, he would have plenty of room to run here.
And so now we're going to play a game and it's called Good Trump, Bad Trump.
And there's no such thing as fully good Trump.
People keep, Hugh Hewitt came out today and he said, well, I'm back on the Trump train.
Hugh Hewitt, who I personally know, I really like Hugh, I think we're friends.
He was jumping on and off the Trump train like a hobo going, you know, trying to cross the country and escape the jackboots, right?
He's just jumping up and down on the train.
So now he's back on the Trump train and he says all he has to do is control himself, Trump.
All he has to do is control himself.
I mean, my God, what are we talking about here?
So we're gonna play Good Trump, Bad Trump.
Trump says some really good things this week.
He also says some stupid things this week.
So we'll start with the good things that he said this week.
Here is Donald Trump ripping President Obama, saying, you know, clearly Obama's angrier at me than he was at this radical Muslim who decided to kill a bunch of gay people in Florida.
I watched President Obama today, and he was more angry at me than he was at the shooter.
And many people said that.
One of the folks on television said, "Boy, has Trump gotten under his skin." But he was more angry, and a lot of people have said this, the level of anger, that's the kind of anger he should have for the shooter and these killers that shouldn't be here.
Hillary Clinton, just yesterday, used the term radical Islam, sort of used it, right?
Did you see?
And they all said, oh, Trump forced her.
I shouldn't be forcing anything.
If you don't know what the term is, and if you don't discuss what the problem is, and if you can't say the real name, we have a radical Islamic terrorism problem, folks.
We can say we don't.
We can pretend like Obama that we don't.
Where Obama spent a long time talking about it.
And nobody at the end of that speech understood anything other than, boy, does he hate Donald Trump.
Okay, everything that Trump says there is exactly correct, 100% true.
If this were the Trump that you got for all the campaign... Excuse me, he'd actually have a shot at winning.
If this were the Trump that you actually saw the entire campaign long, he would actually have a shot at winning this thing.
And he continues along these lines.
Again, this is all good stuff.
Here's Trump explaining, yes, mentioning radical Islam is important.
Yes, it's a worthwhile thing to talk about radical Islam.
He's trying to justify why he won't use, and he said radical Islam, because he didn't want to use the word terrorism, if you noticed, why he won't use that term, or why he doesn't use it, and how it doesn't make any difference, but it does make a difference.
It makes a difference, and it makes a big difference, because unless you're willing to discuss and talk about The real nature of the problem, and the name of the problem, Radical Islamic Terrorism.
You're never going to solve the problem.
Okay, all of this is true.
All of this is good.
So this is, we're playing good Trump, bad Trump.
So this is good Trump.
And he continues along these lines also.
Hillary Clinton had said that she wants the Qataris, the gutteries as she pronounced it, the people from Qatar, to stop providing funding to terrorism and to radical mosques.
She said the same about Saudi Arabia.
And here is Trump punching her over this.
She never until yesterday criticized these countries.
She never until yesterday said radical Islam.
And that's because she was shamed into it.
That's because, yeah, she was shamed into it by me.
And that's because of the pressure I put on her.
But here's a woman that takes all of this money from these countries, and then she says she loves women, and she's totally with the gays, and the, you know, the whatever group you might talk about, the gay, lesbian.
Now, let me just tell you, Sean, how can she be?
They want to kill the gays.
They throw them off buildings.
They actually throw gays off buildings.
And she's taking money.
And I'm calling for her to give back all of the money she's taken from these countries, okay?
I'm much better for women than she is.
I'm much better for gays.
Okay, so everything that he's saying there is, again, 100% true.
So this is good Trump.
Now it's time for bad Trump.
And here's the problem.
Trump can't help himself.
He just can't help himself because his face says things.
There's no filter between his brain and that crazy face.
So it just comes right out the mouth, through those big bottom teeth, and just out.
So Donald Trump, in the last 24 hours, in the last 24 hours, Donald Trump said, everybody in the Republican Party should just shut up and get behind him.
To which Paul Ryan responded, wait, what?
Who are you?
We are a co-equal branch of government.
We don't take orders from you.
Donald Trump also went after the NRA.
So this is the guy who's supposed to be standing up against radical Islam.
He tweeted out, quote, I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, which has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list to buy guns.
And this would be the Democratic policy that they're pushing right now.
So he's now mirroring the Democrats.
He says, like I said, Donald Trump, good diagnostician, terrible doctor.
His diagnostics is right.
His prescription is totally wrong.
And so he's throwing the NRA right under the bus.
Right under the bus.
And it's typical Trump.
It's typical Trump.
He can't stop himself.
He can't stop himself.
It's time for bad Trump.
Then, Donald Trump, in the middle of his lecture, he says this about the gay population and how they should respond to him.
This is in Atlanta yesterday.
And for the women out there, ask the people of Saudi Arabia what they think of women.
And for the gays out there, ask the gays and ask the people.
Ask the gays what they think and what they do in not only Saudi Arabia, in many of these countries, with the gay community.
Just ask.
And then you tell me, who's your friend?
Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?
You tell me.
Okay, so what he says there is fine.
The problem people have online is that when he can't help himself, every time he mentions a group, it's the gays.
It's not ask gay people.
It's not ask Jews.
It's not ask blacks.
It's ask the blacks.
Ask the Jews.
Ask the gays.
And it's just this bizarre verbal tick that he has.
I don't think that he means anything by it per se, but people were jumping all over that.
And then on top of that, he says that he thinks he can talk Kim Jong-un out of having nuclear weapons.
He said this yesterday in Atlanta also.
He just can't stop himself, gang.
He can't stop himself.
One of the papers called the other day and they said, would you speak to the leader of North Korea?
I don't know.
I said, absolutely.
Why not?
Why not?
And they come out.
Trump would speak to him.
Who the hell cares?
I'll speak to anybody.
Who knows?
There's a 10% or a 20% chance that I can talk him out of those damn nukes, because who the hell wants him to have nukes?
And there's a chance.
Okay, there's a chance, there's a chance.
I mean, he sounds like, he sounds like Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber, so you're saying there's a chance?
Okay, so he'll talk to anybody so long as there's a quote-unquote chance, as though there's no downside to talking to these people.
This is Barack Obama's policy, right?
This is Obama's policy.
He said the same thing about North Korea.
He said the same thing about Iran.
So the good Trump-bad Trump train continues to roll along, and it's putting people in a really awkward position.
There's a story today about how Donald Trump has used the Trump Foundation as a slush fund.
There's another story today about how Donald Trump is... I mentioned the one where he's yelling at other Republicans and telling them to shut up.
There are all these Republicans looking at him and saying, what's wrong with you?
You can't even stay on message with regard to the NRA and gun policy.
This is the problem for Trump.
And this is why there's going to be a lot of people who are in a very dicey situation.
This should be Trump's shining moment.
He had the best speech of his campaign early this week.
This is where he can draw his greatest differentiation, his greatest distinction between himself and Hillary Clinton.
And he just can't stop himself.
There's no way for him to stop himself.
And it really is tragic because Democrats are proving exactly how terrible they are.
And Donald Trump is right on this issue, but he can't help himself because he just, his prescriptions are wrong because he doesn't have the proper ideology, and this is the problem.
Fighting the bad guys is imperative, but in order to fight the bad guys, you have to know who you are.
You have to know what it is that you're fighting for.
Trump knows who the bad guys are, but I'm not sure, and the Democrats don't.
The Democrats don't even know who the bad people are.
Donald Trump knows who the bad guys are, but he doesn't know what our values are and why those values are worth preserving and defending.
So he knows to fight the bad guys, which is good, I guess.
I mean, it is good.
But he needs to take the next step, and that is, why are we fighting them?
What's worth preserving here?
What's worth preserving here?
And I think that he has a basic notion of that sometimes, but one of the things that's worth preserving is a small government liberty that he seems entirely too comfortable with throwing out of the way for his own ad hoc self-aggrandizement and policymaking.
Okay.
Time for something I like, and then something I hate, and then some mailbag.
Okay, so things I like.
On Thursdays, we've been doing biblical verses.
I want to issue a correction.
So on my very first Bible verse routine, I actually got something wrong last week, which is perfect, so a few extra minutes in hell for me.
Um, but here, but the, uh, I mentioned that...
There were tribes in the Bible who stayed across the Jordan River but were required to fight with the rest of the tribes in order to liberate Israel, and then they were allowed to settle outside.
I got the tribes wrong.
It was Ruvane, it was Reuben, Gad, and half of Menashe.
It wasn't Menashe and Ephraim.
Okay, fine.
Okay, now here today...
Okay, so we're going through right now in the Jewish community, we're going through the Book of Numbers.
So the next verses in the Book of Numbers are verses 22 through 27.
I won't bother to dazzle you with my ability to read Hebrew, so I'll just read it in English instead.
I'll read it in English instead.
And this is one of these puzzling aspects of the Bible that a lot of people don't get and they don't understand what's special about it or interesting about it or it's so weird.
So it says, I like to answer these questions because the left has this whole list of things online about, oh, you crazy Jews, oh, you crazy Christians who believe all this mumbo-jumbo in the Bible and all the sexist crap in the Bible.
Okay, so there's a whole situation in the Bible in Numbers where it talks about the curse, the idea that a man thinks his wife is cheating on him, and he has warned her in the past that she shouldn't be alone with a guy, and she goes alone with the guy, and then he takes her to the Kohen, he takes her to the priest,
And they write these curses on a piece of paper, and they dissolve it in water, and then she drinks the curses, and then if she cheated on her husband, then she dies, basically, and if she didn't cheat on her husband, then she doesn't die, then they go back to being married.
So, if you just read the text of the Bible, this is pretty weird stuff, right?
I mean, this is weird mumbo-jumbo-y stuff.
This is why in Judaism we have something called the Oral Torah.
So there's the Torah, that's what this is, and then there's the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah is the oral tradition passed on from Moses at Sinai, and it was the explanation for what does this actually mean.
So we learned from the Oral Torah what we learned from the Mishnah and from the Gomorrah, which is the Talmud, which is the commentary on the Oral Torah, is that what actually happens here is that the husband goes to the wife and he says, I think you've been cheating on me.
If she doesn't want to do this magic test here, all she has to say is, okay, let's get a divorce.
She can get out of it.
She can just say, let's get a divorce, which seems to me the proper response in almost any case if your husband thinks you're cheating on you and is serious enough about it to bring you to a priest and have you drink some weird water.
So she can get out of it anytime she wants.
She, however, does not want to do that.
And so she goes and she and she drinks this water.
And presumably it says her thigh collapses, and she dies.
Okay, so.
In most cases, so the question is twofold.
One is the scientific question, what's in the water that makes somebody die?
The second is, why go through this whole rigmarole in the first place?
So, what's in the water that makes somebody die?
Nobody really knows.
There are no documented cases of this ever happening, where somebody drinks the water, and in the Talmud there are no real documented cases of somebody drinks the water and then they die.
So why bother go through this whole rigmarole?
What is written on the piece of paper that is dissolved in the water is the name of God.
Right?
The priest writes the name of God, and then he dissolves it.
One of the rules in Judaism, and in the Bible, is you're not allowed to desecrate the name of God.
This means that in the Jewish community, if you have the formal name of God written in Hebrew, you're not allowed to burn it, you're not allowed to destroy it, you actually have to bury it.
Like, you have to treat it as though it has worth.
But here, you're explicitly ordered to take the name of God, and to dissolve it in water.
Right?
You're specifically told to do this, and why are you told to do this?
To preserve the marriage.
So the idea here is that God is even willing to sacrifice his own dignity.
He's even willing to sacrifice his own name to preserve what we like to call Shalom Bayes, to preserve the health of the household, to bring husband and wife back together.
So the husband is suspicious and it, by the way, it encourages the husband not to do this repeatedly.
Don't do this.
You're making a big mistake by doing this.
But if both sides of the couple want to go forward with all of this, then the idea is that even God, God is willing to sacrifice himself To preserve marriage, and that's the essence of this entire section, this puzzling section, is if there's that much suspicion between husband and wife, God is willing to put his own name on the line.
He's willing to put his own name on the line, his own honor on the line, in order to sanctify the marriage, and in order to assure the innocence of the woman who's being wrongly accused.
So that's this part of the Bible that I wanted to explain today, that again is from Numbers 5.22 to 5.27.
Okay.
Now another thing that I like that has nothing to do with the Bible and this is the there's a prank video that somebody put out and it really is kind of hilarious so there's this this guy who wanted to show that Americans react differently to Muslim terrorists than they do to supposedly Christian terrorists.
Duh.
So here's the prank video that he put out.
He has a guy and he's dressed up for people who can't see.
He's dressed up in like full Muslim gear and and then he's and you'll see you'll see how it progresses.
He's gonna be an Islamic terrorist, I'm gonna be a Christian terrorist, and let's see if people act differently towards each one of us.
"Ala Akbar!" "Ala Akbar!" "Ala Akbar!" Oh, .
Alahu Akbar.
Did you think it was a bomb?
Yeah, it was crazy.
Yeah.
OK, so this guy's running around.
He's dropping a suitcase and yelling, "Ala hu Akbar." And then... And then... Running around.
What I love... Some of these people is like... This is not how you should respond if you think bombing is going on, gang.
Like, I'm just telling you, like... They move one... They move six inches.
Like, they freak out and they move six inches as though that's gonna protect them from the bomb blast.
Right, and then I love the girls who are standing there in a field, and they go back for their stuff.
Like, okay, if you actually thought that's a bomb, you might wanna, like, get the hell out of there.
Okay, so, here's how people react to a Christian terrorist.
And here's a guy- Praise Jesus.
And he just drops his suitcase, and yells, Jesus loves you.
Praise Jesus.
He just praised Jesus, and drops it, and drops his suitcase, and then walks away.
And these kids kinda sit there, and nothing happens.
Okay- Praise Jesus.
Praise Jesus, and then he just runs away.
And nobody's doing anything, right?
Nobody's freaking out about it.
People are just looking around like, what the hell is this?
Okay, so the reason for this, gang, is because when someone shouts Allahu Akbar, it generally is followed by an explosion of some sort, okay?
When you're not in Islamic prayer service, someone's just running up to you in public, shouts Allahu Akbar, it's not gonna end well.
If somebody says praise Jesus and drops something in front of you, there's at least a 90% chance that you just dropped a box of Bibles.
I mean, really, like, or he dropped some candies that he got from the Girl Scouts or something.
Or he's just a crazy guy who dropped his bag of crosses.
Like, there's not a long history of people shouting praise to Jizal, who Akbar's a buzzword gang.
That's the reason why people freak out when this happens.
And this shows that people, I guess the idea was to show Americans are Islamophobic?
Dude, if somebody is wearing that and drops a package in front of me and shouts Allahu Akbar, I am sure as hell Islamophobic enough to run like hell from that, okay?
That's not Islamophobic, that's you not being a moron.
So, okay, so there's that video.
Okay, things I hate.
Janet Yellen, who's the head of the Federal Reserve, she was asked about helicopter money.
So, helicopter money...
Let's say that the economy is doing really badly.
Helicopter money is the idea that the federal government can increase spending by literally getting in a helicopter and shoveling physical cash out of the helicopter onto vast swaths of the community and then people have extra money and they'll go spend it and we'll have a great economy again.
The reason this is stupid is because if I have a watch that's worth $100 and you now give everybody $100, my watch is going to go up in price because You haven't changed the underlying value of the watch, you just changed the ruler that we're measuring by, right?
I'm 5'9", contrary to popular opinion.
If I have a yardstick that says that I am 7'3", it doesn't matter.
I'm still 5'9".
I'm exactly the same height I was before.
Okay, the value of an object does not change based on the number of dollars in circulation.
It still has the same inherent value in terms of the market that's being traded, it's just the measurement stick has changed.
Here's Janet Yellen, the head of the Fed, being a moron.
In unusual times where the concern is with very weak growth or possibly deflation, rather rare circumstances, first of all, fiscal policy can be a very important tool.
And it's natural that if it can be employed, that just as monetary policy is doing a lot To try to stimulate growth, the fiscal policy should play a role, and normally you would hope in an economy with those severe downside risks, monetary and fiscal policy would not be working at cross purposes, but together.
Now, whether or not in such extreme circumstances, there might be a case for, let's say, coordination, close coordination, where the central bank playing a role No, it doesn't.
Nothing changes.
You just made everybody's savings worth nothing.
That's all that happened.
Right?
Because my savings still have the same number of dollars in there.
You didn't inflate my savings.
You just made them worth nothing.
I can't buy anything with them.
Okay.
So that's why having the Fed in charge of our fiscal policy is really stupid.
Okay, mailbag time.
Let's do a few minutes of mailbag.
Okay.
Marcelo writes, Ben, I'm a conservative who was born and raised in Brazil, a country that elected with vast majority votes to Marxist government and Marxist guerrillas.
I moved to America to integrate work.
I'm a doctor and become a true American.
I see this country looking more and more like Brazil, which terrifies me.
What do you think would be the best way for me to help prevent this from happening?
I use my experience in Brazil to try to open people's eyes, but how can I make it more effective?
Well, first of all, you should write as much as possible.
You should get the word out there.
You should make videos.
You should distribute the message.
If you want to submit to Daily Wire, we don't take a lot of submissions, but if you want to submit, I'm more than happy to take a look.
That's a message that needs to be... People from abroad who have been in countries where we've tried all of these things and failed...
Your words have a little bit more weight than people here kind of theorizing about it.
I just got done reading his book, Righteous Indignation, which was great.
I also read your book, Bullies, which was fantastic.
Righteous Indignation, Andrew's book, is really a terrific book.
I saw a video by Gavin McInnes on Rebel Media talking about the 14 different groups on the right.
He labeled Breitbart a Trump conservative.
Having read his and your book, I didn't get the impression of that being a correct categorization.
Am I wrong or do you agree with Gavin's assessment?
Well, I think Gavin has Trump all wrong, so I think that's the problem.
So Gavin, I think, believes that Trump is just a guy who slaps social justice warriors and slaps the left and doesn't really care about policy.
That's not what Trump does.
Trump is just an ad hoc totalitarian, and his enemies are who his enemies happen to be at that given moment.
Some are on the left, some are on the right.
Andrew Breitbart's motivating factor in life was standing up to bullies.
Andrew didn't think that Trump was a conservative in any way, and he also thought that bullies had to be fought.
So the fact that Andrew Breitbart, you know, like...
Let me just give you an example, not to go back to a sore subject, but there is no way in hell that if Andrew Breitbart had been alive during the Michelle Fields incident, he doesn't fly down to Florida and confront Trump for an apology for his reporter.
Just, there's no way it doesn't happen.
Anybody who knows Andrew would tell you this.
Anyone.
Okay?
Except for the people who currently work at Breitbart, because they have reason not to tell you that.
But that's the reality.
Andrew was first and foremost a guy who hated bullies, and that was true on the left and on the right.
Okay?
Ben writes, if you were president, what would your immigration position be?
What would you do with all the people already here?
If I were president, I would build a wall.
I would also limit the amount of immigration from countries that do not have a history of Western civilization.
I would institute a philosophy test for people coming in to ensure that they are not going to take welfare.
I would cut our welfare programs dramatically to not create a magnet for people coming here illegally.
And I would ensure that people who are here illegally and taking welfare, people who are here illegally and taking government benefits, people who are a net draw on the society are deported.
That means actually looking at each illegal immigrant.
That doesn't mean that the illegal immigrant who's valedictorian of her high school and now going to Yale, we should deport her.
But it does mean the illegal immigrant who's been caught five times for felonies should probably be deported and stay deported.
That's my view.
We can do this on a one-to-one basis.
We don't have to say all illegal immigrants go, all illegal immigrants stay.
That's dumb.
It's not practical.
What you can do is you can say some of you deserve to go and some of you deserve to stay and you know impose a fine for people who are staying so that they can pay off their debt because they obviously have had a cost on the society.
Okay.
Andrew writes, Hi Ben, what does Ayn Rand get right and what does she get wrong?
Drew.
Well first of all, Drew, I saw you like five minutes ago in the office.
You could have just asked me in person.
But, what does Ayn Rand get right?
What she gets right is her take on capitalism.
That productivity is what drives capitalism.
That you own your own labor.
And that your labor is an extension of you.
That there's a moral side to capitalism.
That's what Ayn Rand gets right.
What Ayn Rand gets wrong, Objectivism is the perception that selfishness is always good, and the way she defines selfishness is, if I decide to leave my wife and nail another broad, then that's good because I'm being selfish and it would be, my altruism would end up hurting me and my wife if I were to stay with her and be monogamous.
So I should basically do what I want, right?
And that's where she's just missing the boat.
The fact is that Relationships, interpersonal relationships with the people you love do require a certain amount of altruism.
You'll notice that in Ayn Rand's book, there are no children.
There are no children in any of her books.
The reason for this is because raising children is entirely altruistic.
I can tell you, having lost sleep for the last six weeks, that's not something I enjoy doing.
It's not something fun to do.
I'm not doing it out of my own selfish motivation.
I'm doing it because my wife needs help.
The selfish thing for me to do is I have a wife.
She's, you know, taking time off right now.
My selfish thing to do would be, okay, honey, you deal with the baby.
I got things to do.
Right?
You can deal with him.
They might argue, okay, well, but you're really making yourself feel good, and that's the real selfishness.
Okay, it's kind of a weak argument.
The reality is that, believe me, it's not making me feel all that good that I'm staying up all hours of the night.
So, Ayn Rand's view of interpersonal relationships and love is very, very sick.
Her perspective on capitalism, however, is excellent.
Peter writes, Ben, did your wife serve in the Israeli military?
If so, does she use Krav Maga on you when you say something too outrageous?
She did not serve in the military.
She immigrated to the United States permanently when she was 12.
She and her family were back and forth before then.
She speaks English just like I do.
There's no accent.
She also speaks Hebrew without an accent, which is kind of cool.
And what do you think about American women registering for the draft now?
I think this is idiotic.
I don't think that women should be drafted because women are women and men were created on earth, at least in large part, to protect women.
I think that if women want to go to the military, Good for them.
If women are drafted, no, I don't think you should draft my wife or my daughter.
I think that's stupid, and I don't think that women have the same physical capacity that men do.
And as far as Israel's ideas on women's military service, Israel has a draft, but the draft also allows women to sign up for national service.
So it's not a military draft.
It's also you can sign up for shirut lumi, which means that you can do kind of tourism on behalf of the state, and you can go out and you can recruit kind of support on behalf of the state of Israel.
Price right.
Hi, Ben.
How can I prove stricter gun control actually causes higher crime?
Your input would be much appreciated.
Okay, so stricter gun control doesn't always cause higher crime.
It tends to.
It tends to.
The problem is that statistics are easy to cherry-pick.
In order to prove this, in order to get the left to acknowledge this, what you really have to do is you have to take two comparable populations.
The left likes to say, well, Chicago has high gun crime rates, but that's just because it's Chicago.
Right?
If you tried the same gun control measures in Vermont, you would have low crime rates.
Okay, well that's true because the people in Vermont don't commit crimes, right?
So it's, you have to find comparable populations.
It's very easy to cherry-pick statistics here.
That's why I tend to make the argument that one thing I can prove is that gun control does not work.
Right?
I can't tell you that non-gun control works better, absolutely.
I can tell you that gun control simply does not work.
In the same way I can't tell you that abstinence-only sex education works better than comprehensive sex education, I can just tell you comprehensive sex ed doesn't work.
Right?
Which is true.
Hey, Ben, if you could set up a debate with the leftist of your choosing, who would it be?
Well, President Obama, because he's the most prominent, and then I could make fun of him.
I like to go after prominent leftists.
Ben, this is also from Andrew.
Andrew's writing a lot this week.
Different Andrew, I think.
This is Andy.
Could you explain the left's infatuation with Islam?
They're quick to attack Jews and Christians.
They seem to bend over backwards to defend Islam.
Sure.
The reason that they defend Islam is because for the left, as I've explained before, if the left sees a room and there's a guy with $5 and a guy with $1 in the room, the left immediately assumes something terrible has happened.
The guy with $5 has hurt the guy with $1.
When the left looks at global civilization, who's successful in global civilization?
Christians and Jews.
They look at Muslims, they're impoverished, they live in backwaters, their countries are absolute crap holes, the women are treated like garbage.
Right.
So, people like us, we say, well, right, because they have bad values.
People on the left say, that must be because Western civilization exploited them and hurt them, and therefore they're victims, right?
They're third world victims.
And victims in left ideology are heroes, and so these victim heroes have to be given additional benefits.
They have to be handed things.
Trevor writes, I see a lot of people who try to defend Islam say, ISIS is to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity.
What would be the best way to go about attacking that statement?
Okay, what I would say is, number one, there may be some truth to that, mildly, in the sense that the KKK identifies as Christian.
I would say that the most extreme Christians tend to be evangelical Christians who hate the KKK.
If you take extreme Christians, the worst that generally an extreme Christian is going to do is babysit your kid on a Saturday night.
The worst that an extreme Muslim is going to do is bomb your Canada Sparrows, right?
So, the KKK, that's number one.
I'm not sure how representative KKK is to Christianity.
I can say the views of ISIS are far more representative in the Muslim world.
This is why I don't go to the Quranic analysis mode.
I don't think it's that important.
What I do think is important is how many people in the Islamic world agree with bad stuff.
The number of Christians who agree with KKK is minimal.
Really minimal.
The number of people in the Muslim world who agree with the basic worldview of ISIS is actually relatively high.
It may even be a majority.
Like, we're used to American Muslims who are pretty moderate in orientation, but most of the world is not American Muslims.
99% of Afghanis believe that if you're homosexual, you should be executed.
99%, okay?
So, the 99% believe in honor killings.
Like, if your daughter has sex with the wrong guy, you should go and kill her.
Right, so that's, you know, that is a significant problem within Islam.
If I look at an ideology and a majority or a borderline majority of the people agree with the most extreme version that's really harmful, that's a far cry from a hundred people who are members of the KKK.
Okay, final question.
I'm sorry I didn't have time for all of these.
Ian writes, Hey Ben, I'm an avid viewer of the podcast, and you've helped shape my worldview.
I've read the book you recommended months ago, The Conservative Heart.
I'm wondering if this tactic can be used in conjunction with how to debate leftists, or are they two diametrically opposed political strategies?
No, they have to be used in conjunction.
So The Conservative Heart says you have to make a moral argument.
You have to make a moral argument for why what you're saying is good and reaches out to people and helps people.
I've said that you also have to, in order for you to make a significantly effective moral argument, you also have to name the villain.
So, I say name the villain, and then present, here's why we care about you.
But first, you have to name the villain.
Right?
The rule in politics is, think of it as sumo wrestling.
You have to take your opponent and throw them out of the circle, right?
And then, you bring everybody else into your circle.
But first, you have to throw your opponent out of the circle, or everybody including your opponent is in the circle, and he can recruit from within the circle.
This is what the left understands, but the right seems not to.
Okay, that's all we have time for, but we will be back next week with much, much more, and I believe it's either next week or the week after, we're going to be doing Facebook Live, so you'll be able to watch us live on Facebook as we do it live, and you'll be able to see when I say ridiculous things and Lindsey's laughing, and if I make Lindsey dance, indeed, as promised earlier, you'll be able to watch that live.
Yeah, Lindsey's very excited about this, I am less so, but we will have to see about how that goes.
▲
Export Selection