Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 31, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:01

Ep. 175 - Trump Goes To Mexico! Taco Bowls For Everybody!

Donald heads south, Hillary is still the most corrupt person in world history, and who's to blame if Trump loses? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	On Friday, a South Carolina high school stopped students from bringing American flags to a football game against a heavily Hispanic rival school.
	Why?
	Well, the principal was presumably worried that waving the flag might offend the Hispanic kids.
	According to the principal, quote, "This decision would be made any time that the American flag or any other symbol, sign, cheer, or action on the part of our fans would potentially compromise the safety of all in attendance at a school event." This isn't the first such situation.
	The 9th U.S.
	Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year a public school in California could ban students from wearing a shirt emblazoned with an American flag on Cinco de Mayo thanks to fears over racial conflict at that school.
	The lawyer for the kids said, quote, this opens the door for a school to suppress any viewpoints that are opposed by a band of vocal and violent bullies.
	Meanwhile, has been, kind of never was, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has been widely praised by the left media for refusing to stand for the national anthem during football games.
	He said, I'm not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.
	He explained this while earning $19 million for sitting on the bench.
	He continued, quote, to me, this is bigger than football.
	It would be selfish on my part to look the other way.
	There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.
	Hey folks, we're watching the end of America in real time.
	That doesn't mean the country's on the verge of actual implosion.
	But the idea of America required a common definition of being American.
	A love of country based on the basis of its founding philosophy.
	That has now been undermined by the left.
	Love of country doesn't mean you have to love everything about America.
	Or that you can't criticize America.
	But loving America means understanding that this country was founded on a unique basis.
	A uniquely good basis.
	That's what the flag stands for.
	Not ethnic superiority or racial solidarity or police brutality.
	But the basic notion of individual liberty and equal rights before God.
	But with the destruction of that central principle, the ties that bind us together, they're fraying.
	And the left loves it.
	In fact, the two defining philosophical iterations of the modern left, they both make war with the ties that bind us together.
	In President Obama's landmark second inaugural address, people haven't looked at it closely enough, he said, quote, being true to our founding documents does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.
	This is the same kind of definition worshipped by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has single-handedly redefined the Constitution on issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage.
	He said, quote, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Well, I mean, after smoking a bong, it probably seems that way, but this means that liberty has no real definition outside of stuff I want to do.
	And it turns out we all want to do different stuff, sometimes at the expense of other people's liberty and stuff.
	Subjective definitions of liberty, rather than a common definition, means a conflict of all against all, or at least a conflict of a government controlled by some who are targeting everybody else.
	It means our flag is no longer a common symbol for our shared definition of liberty.
	It's just a rag that means different things to different people based on their subjective experiences and definitions of reality.
	And that truly means we have nothing holding us together.
	The only way to restore the ties that bind us is to rededicate ourselves to the basic idea of liberty for which generations of Americans fought and died.
	That won't happen so long as the left insists that their feelings are more important than your rights.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Oh, we have such an epic show coming up for you today.
	But first, we have to say thank you to our friends over at Birch Gold.
	So, folks, if you're concerned about the direction of the economy, if you think that President Obama has inflated the dollar, if you think that the real estate market is inflated, if you think that the stock market is inflated, and that we're headed for a fall given our weak economic growth, you probably are already thinking about shielding some of your assets in gold, in precious metals.
	And you should have part of your assets in Precious Metals.
	Not the whole thing.
	I'm not saying go liquidate your bank account, buy a bunch of gold, and stock it under your bed.
	I am saying that you should have part of your portfolio in Precious Metals.
	The people that I trust with Precious Metals are the folks over at Birch Gold Group.
	They have a long-standing track record of continued success.
	They have thousands of satisfied clients.
	They have five-star reviews.
	But most importantly, they have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, so you know that they're not scamsters.
	Right now, because of a little-known IRS tax law, you can even move your IRA or your eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver, which is a great way to protect from inflation or stock market crashes.
	If you want to talk to the folks at Birch Gold Group, they will send you a free information kit on owning physical gold.
	This comprehensive 16-page kit reveals how gold and silver can protect your savings and how you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRAs.
	To get your no cost, no obligation kit call Birch Gold Group at 800-496-6663.
	at 800-496-6663. That's 800-496-6663.
	Or go to www.birchgold.com slash Ben.
	That's B-I-R-C-H gold dot com slash ben.
	Make sure you add birchgold slash ben because that reminds them that we're the ones who sent you and that means that they know that we've been talking about you and they continue to advertise, which pays all the labor for all of our poor minion oompa loompas.
	So make sure that you go to birchgold.com slash ben if you're interested in purchasing precious metals and information surrounding it.
	Okay, so we begin today.
	With breaking news, breaking news gang, Hillary Clinton is super duper corrupt.
	If that sounds like the breaking news every day for the last 30 years, that's because it basically is, it now turns out that Hillary Clinton was, wait for it, lying about, wait for it, her missing emails.
	No, yeah, right?
	I mean, everybody's like, whoa!
	No, it turns out, shocker, I mean, this is the most shocking news since Rosie O'Donnell announced she was a lesbian.
	It's true.
	According to the State Department, among the thousands of emails now recovered by the FBI from Hillary's bleached, bit-ridden personal server, there's about 30 emails about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
	So Hilary, as you recall, she had said that all of these emails concerned yoga and her daughter's wedding.
	I didn't realize that Chelsea was getting married in Benghazi and that Hilary intended on attending yoga classes in Benghazi.
	I mean, at least that would explain why she hasn't done yoga for 10 years.
	She was getting yoga class emails from Benghazi, apparently.
	Or, alternatively, she was deleting all sorts of relevant material because she's corrupt and she was attempting to shield herself from scrutiny over that corruption.
	Apparently, she was sending this classified email, this classified material, long after, or at least information on Benghazi that was deleted from her server, long after she was at the State Department.
	So she was a private citizen sending what could have been classified information via a private server to other people who worked for her.
	Yes, she's deeply corrupt.
	I love it when the left says, there's no smoking gun, there's no smoking gun.
	Okay, there has never been and never will be a criminal case in which there's an actual smoking gun when you didn't see the shot fired.
	Okay, those cases may be limited to once in a thousand years.
	Basically, the left's argument is this.
	We say Hillary Clinton set up a private server.
	She did it specifically to hide material, and then she deleted the material she wanted hidden.
	Pretty clear, pretty obvious narrative, that's why she did it.
	According to the left, they say, well, how do you know what was in the emails?
	Maybe it was all innocent.
	This is like saying, after the O.J.
	Simpson murders, how do you know that Nicole and Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death with a knife?
	How do you know?
	We never found the weapon.
	We never found the murderer.
	We never found the knife.
	Right.
	We just have their bodies and their heads cut off.
	So I'm gonna go with it was a knife, right?
	If they're missing a lot of emails, I'm gonna go with she was deleting emails for a reason.
	She wasn't doing it just for the funsies of it.
	So, Hillary Clinton continues to be deeply corrupt.
	It's showing in the polls.
	Her favorable-unfavorable numbers are sinking again.
	And this is the whole race.
	It's basically, who do Americans hate more, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?
	It is amazing, the favorable-unfavorable numbers.
	According to the ABC Washington Post poll, Trump's favorability has now improved 7 points among men while slipping 6 points among women.
	But Hillary's numbers are just egregiously bad.
	Hillary's numbers are brutal.
	I mean, we're talking about She slipped from I think it was 45 to, she had 45% approval with women, 52% unfavorable.
	Now she, rather the opposite, she used to be 54 to 43 positive to negative among women.
	Now she's 45 to 52.
	So she slipped.
	Seven, eight points among women in one month since the conventions.
	Everybody hates Hillary Clinton, and they do because everybody knows that she's corrupt and terrible.
	And everybody knows she's lying.
	Tim Kaine, who's her vice presidential candidate, and the second unluckiest vice presidential candidate in this race, Tim Kaine said that—you want to hear something ridiculous.
	Here is Tim Kaine talking about transparency and accountability.
	Whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, you've got a right to know about the person who is running to be your President or Commander-in-Chief.
	You've got a right to know everything you need to know to judge whether a candidate will work for you, will work for the country, or is only in it for himself.
	Okay, so yes, he is deeply invested in the notion of transparency and revealing all the information.
	Also, at no point will Hillary ever reveal her medical records.
	The former Obama doctor was on TV last night stunning the medical world by announcing that Hillary should actually have a neurological exam, given the fact that she fell and bonked her head so badly she had to wear dual-pane glasses.
	Well, I think that medical letter was well-written and was very professional, unlike Dr. Bornstein's.
	It's not enough.
	For example, she is on Coumadin.
	medication to prevent blood clots.
	And you have to monitor that, and it says that she's being monitored regularly.
	I'd like to know how well she is being controlled.
	That's a difficult drug to use.
	Also, I think she should have had a neurological examination, a thorough neurological examination in 2016.
	We know what happens to football players who have had concussions, how they begin to lose some of their cognitive ability.
	I think both of them should release their record.
	Okay, Aaron Burnett is looking on like, I can't believe this guy's saying this on CNN.
	He's not allowed to say this on CNN.
	Somebody cut off his mic.
	And early this morning, this doctor was found with a bullet hole in him at Fort Marcy Park.
	But aside from that, everything is going really well.
	Even the media are beginning to turn on Hillary over her corruption.
	A.B.
	Stoddard, who's a reporter for, she used to be for The Hill, she says that Democrats have to be terrified about what's going to come out of Hillary's emails.
	Right.
	Jonah's right.
	So many things she said a year ago, but even that day, that Benghazi testimony in the 11 hours last October, she said, I remember that day, she said something that the State Department captured between 90 and 95 percent of her emails, and the State Department had to come out in the next week and say that they didn't know where that number came from, that that wasn't true.
	She has Obviously brought this on herself.
	What she probably thought was legalese that would protect her were actually a bunch of lies.
	They've all been proven wrong.
	Now it's not just another shoe to drop, it's raining shoes and Democrats are terrified about what's going to be coming out this week.
	First of all, I have to admit that when she said, it's raining shoes, for some reason, it's raining men popped into my head, which is just sad for me.
	But in any case, she's not the only one.
	A.B.
	Stoddard isn't the only one who's saying that this is a problem.
	David Axelrod, who doesn't have any really—he doesn't have a lot of love for Hillary Clinton.
	He's an Obama dude, David Axelrod.
	He says Hillary's emails were going to be the backdrop of this election.
	And new chapters keep evolving here.
	The release of the FBI report and presumably her transcript.
	Uh, these 15,000 emails that were deleted.
	This is going to be in the backdrop of this election from now until November.
	The question is, are there revelations within these emails that are more damning than the ones we've seen already?
	If the answer is no, then I think it's background music.
	If the answer is yes, it becomes more of a central issue.
	It is, I think, first and foremost sad that David Axelrod no longer has his mustache.
	I know that that makes no difference, but I'm just pointing it out.
	Even Mika Brzezinski, who is fully on the Donald Trump is a full insane person, we need to have a full psychological workup of him.
	Even Mika's saying that Hillary's latest email excuses just don't fly.
	I think it's all part of the baggage that the Clintons have lugged across the landscape of this country for 30 years.
	I don't think it's one specific thing.
	I think it's just an additional thing.
	But you know what, people?
	When they get out there in the ether in today's headline, it's 30 emails.
	Benghazi hidden.
	That doesn't help.
	Sorry.
	30 missing emails about Benghazi?
	That just doesn't help.
	It's still mushier and gushier.
	No, it's not mushy.
	It's mushier than Trump's soundbite.
	People are not that dumb.
	I'm just saying what we've been saying for over a year, even further, is that the email thing is big.
	It needs to be answered to.
	It needs to be completely transparent from the get-go.
	I guess she couldn't push the State Department to move along and get those emails out?
	Okay, and shockingly, Mika Brzezinski is exactly right.
	So everybody understands at this point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply corrupt candidate.
	She's also, as Donald Trump has said, she is a low-energy candidate.
	So while Donald Trump is traveling to Louisiana, Hillary Clinton is sitting back home recovering from whatever it is she suffers from, and Donald Trump is out there campaigning.
	The polls are starting to tighten a little bit.
	They're not tightening massively.
	Wisconsin, there are some polls out today that show that Trump was down three points among likely voters, which is a close result.
	Trump can lose some of the swing states if he wins Wisconsin.
	He would also have to win Wisconsin and Iowa.
	Those are the two swing states where he's closest.
	New Hampshire is basically lost at this point.
	Pennsylvania is in uphill battle.
	But Wisconsin results look a little bit better for Donald Trump.
	I will mention here that there were some election results last night that prove that the entire Republican base is not Trumpian.
	I mean, that's important to note.
	Marco Rubio won his primary last night.
	John McCain, unfortunately, won his primary last night.
	But both of those were opposed by Trump.
	That obviously didn't stop Rubio.
	It didn't stop McCain either.
	So, you know, there's still open debate within the Republican Party about how much of an effect Trump has on the Republican Party.
	But that said, Trump, his newfound campaign, what he's done in the last couple of weeks, has been much, much better.
	Now, that doesn't ignore the fact he's had absolute, utter chaos on immigration.
	It doesn't ignore the fact that Donald Trump's edition of Steve Bannon has opened some really ugly doors that we're going to talk about in a little while here on the show.
	But Trump is making some interesting moves.
	So today, Donald Trump is headed down to Mexico.
	He's giving his big illegal immigration speech tonight, rolling out his immigration plan, which I thought he'd rolled out before, but this is the new improved version of the Donald Trump immigration plan sponsored by Jeb Bush.
	So he's rolling that out this evening.
	But before he does that, he's taking a quick jaunt to Mexico, where he's meeting with the president of Mexico, a guy named Enrique Peña Nieto.
	So to make clear what this is about, Enrique Peña Nieto is really unpopular in his own country.
	He's got like 23% approval ratings.
	He's seen as co-opted.
	He's seen as corrupt.
	And so he's inviting Trump down.
	And Trump may be walking into a trap here.
	Trump may be walking into a bit of a trap here.
	Because there are only a few possible outcomes to Trump going down to Mexico before this speech.
	There are the two that I think Trump thinks he's going to get, and then there are the two that actually might happen that could be very damaging for him.
	Outcome number one.
	Here, we'll do the two that could help Trump.
	You know what?
	Should we make this part of Good Trump, Bad Trump?
	Yeah, let's do it.
	Let's make it part of Good Trump, Bad Trump.
	Sponsored, of course, the theme song, of course, thanks to our good friend Brandon for creating it.
	It's time for a little bit of Good Trump, Bad Trump.
	Let's do it.
	Good Trump, Bad Trump, which one will we get today?
	And we begin with good Trump.
	Yes.
	So Donald Trump headed down to Mexico.
	So he's going to go down to Mexico and he's going to give taco bowls to everybody.
	Or at the very least, I was sort of hoping that he would, it would be fun if Trump were as stereotypical as everybody thinks he is.
	It would be really fun if he just went down there in like a sombrero and a poncho and playing Speedy Gonzales cartoons on his iPod.
	But I don't think he will do that.
	Instead, Donald Trump is going to go down, I think he has There are four possible outcomes, two of which are the ones that he wants and two are the ones he doesn't.
	The two that he wants, he could go down there and he could get some sort of concession from Peña Nieto.
	He could go down there and Peña Nieto could say, I'll help pay for the wall.
	Not going to happen, but in Trump's dream that's what happens.
	He comes back up and he waves that piece of paper and does his speech and he says, look at me, I've negotiated a great deal, the greatest deal you've ever seen.
	Right?
	He could do that.
	That'd be the best outcome for him.
	Second best outcome for him is he goes there, he has a conversation, and then he comes back and he says, the issues have been made more clear to me.
	I've seen the evidence.
	I still believe what I believe, but I've talked with the people who really matter.
	And then it's an explanation for why he's flipping a little bit.
	It doesn't make sense according to the timeline, but it makes him look as though he's listening to outside sources.
	It makes him look as though he's willing to negotiate.
	It makes him look more moderate on this issue than he has been heretofore.
	So those are the two good outcomes that could happen.
	Here are a couple of bad outcomes that could happen.
	One is, this could be an absolute trap.
	Enrique Peña Nieto, because he's unpopular, He could be inviting down someone even more unpopular in Mexico than he is, Donald Trump, just so that he can smack him in public.
	You could see this happening.
	You could see Trump going down to Mexico and Peña Nieto saying in front of the cameras, this guy says that all of my countrymen are rapists and murderers.
	This is a guy who says that he doesn't want to do business with Mexico and that we're not their friends.
	And here he is, you know, coming down here for his own electoral prospects.
	That'd be really devastating for Trump.
	I assume that he got some sort of guarantee from Peña Nieto that wouldn't happen, but It still could, which is why there was opposition in Trump-land about that particular possibility, I think, about him going down to Mexico.
	The other outcome that could be bad is if Trump goes down there and smacks Peña Nieto, because then it looks like he just went down there to kick the Mexican government right in the crotch.
	Like, that's just very Trumpian.
	His base would love it, but I'm not sure the American people would be in love with it.
	So those are the four possible outcomes in all of this.
	We'll be discussing more of this.
	We're going to be discussing more good Trump, bad Trump.
	In a little while.
	First, we have to say hello to our other advertiser for today, and that is Helix Sleep.
	So Helix Sleep, for people who don't know what Helix is or what Helix does, this is really cool.
	You go on their website, and you type in a bunch of information about the kind of mattress that you like to sleep on.
	You go to helixsleep.com, and they run a 3D biomechanical model of your body through algorithms that they've developed themselves.
	I've done this myself with my wife, and they ask you sort of, Do you heat up at night?
	Do you get hot at night?
	Do you sweat a lot?
	Do you like it firm?
	Do you like it moderately firm?
	Do you like the mattress soft?
	They ask you, obviously, size.
	They ask you for your weight and your height.
	They ask you, do you have hip pain?
	They ask you for your body build.
	Are you built with big shoulders and small hips or the opposite?
	And then they generate the mattress that's best for you, and they customize—if you're two people, they customize each side of the mattress, or at least they can— Helix customers say that there's a better sleep quality.
	And then in about a week, the mattress shows up.
	Shipping is 100% free.
	And everybody who's tried it that I've talked to loves it.
	I have mine coming, so I'll tell you how it works as soon as I get it.
	It should be coming in the next few days.
	You have 100 nights to try it out.
	That's the best part.
	You have 100 nights to try it out.
	If you don't like it, they'll pick it up for free, and then they'll take it back.
	And give you a 100% refund.
	They won't ask you why.
	They won't bother you.
	They'll just take it.
	No questions asked.
	So you go to HelixSleep.com slash Ben and you get $50 off your order, which is a sweet deal.
	That's HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Make sure you use HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	So again, they know that we sent you and then they are our advertisers and we're grateful for their advertising.
	Okay, so we're still going to talk about more of Trump in Mexico, what it means for Donald Trump.
	We're also going to get to Trump on race.
	There's more good Trump.
	And then we're going to get to a sentiment that I've seen from some radio hosts on the right that requires a bit of a rebuttal.
	And so we'll talk about that as well.
	Plus, today is a little bit of Bible study.
	Yes, we'll make you holier by the end of this show.
	If you want to be a subscriber, and today you're going to want to because we have props today.
	Dailywire.com is the place to do it.
	That means you get to see the rest of the show.
	$8 a month.
	Gets you the subscription.
	Plus, you get to email me and be part of the mailbag tomorrow.
	So dailywire.com.
	This brings to an end Facebook and YouTube.
	You can listen to the rest of the program a little bit later today on iTunes and SoundCloud.
	We are the number one conservative podcast in America.
	So Mike Pence, the vice presidential candidate, he was talking today about why Trump is going down to Mexico.
	Here's what he had to say.
	Donald Trump is someone that says, we got an invitation.
	We got an opportunity.
	Let's drop what we're doing.
	He's going to go and sit down.
	He's going to go and he's going to be active.
	I want to point out here that the media made an incredibly, incredibly big deal over Barack Obama.
	Remember late in 2008, there's the financial collapse.
	And Barack Obama comes forward and he goes to D.C. and he sits at a table and everybody goes, oh my God, that's so presidential.
	Doesn't matter, he did anything.
	He didn't do anything.
	But it doesn't matter.
	He went down, he went to D.C.
	And everybody said, that's just wonderful.
	They're not going to give Trump the same kind of treatment.
	But this is that kind of move.
	Trump is being active on the campaign trail.
	Hillary is doing what we in the sports world don't like to see, which is she's playing ahead.
	She's playing as though she has a safe lead.
	She's trying to run out the clock.
	Most teams that try to run out the clock typically end up losing the game.
	Hillary seems to be doing that.
	Jorge Ramos, who hates Trump and is a very left Mexican-American activist on Univision, he says Trump's in panic mode.
	I disagree with him, but here's his take.
	I'm noticing a change, definitely, because we have to remember what Donald Trump said.
	He said that he was going to deport 11 million in two years.
	That's exactly what he said.
	And now they're saying, well, they need baby steps.
	They don't know exactly what's going to happen.
	The fact is that they simply cannot do that.
	We have to wait what Donald Trump is going to be saying tomorrow.
	But I think Donald Trump right now is in mode when it comes to Latinos.
	And it doesn't matter what he says tomorrow.
	He already lost the Latino vote.
	Okay, and that's his take on it.
	I think that it's a smart move by Trump.
	It could be a really stupid move by Trump.
	It could end up really badly, but you gotta take risks.
	If you're down in the game, you gotta start throwing the long ball, you gotta start throwing it down the field, and that's what Trump is doing here.
	Speaking of throwing it down the field, Donald Trump, more good Trump, more good Trump.
	So here's Donald Trump talking about race yesterday on the campaign trail and going after the Democratic Party.
	The Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln.
	Not bad.
	Not bad.
	It's also the party of freedom, equality and opportunity.
	People have forgotten it so long now.
	It is the Democratic Party that is the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow, and the party of opposition.
	Of course, every element of that is true.
	He also obviously watched Dinesh D'Souza's film, and he's summing up Dinesh D'Souza's talking points.
	Dinesh should get some royalties for this particular speech.
	It's true, right?
	Everything he's saying is true.
	The only problem for Trump on this particular score, right, is true.
	The Democratic Party was founded in slavery.
	It was founded to protect slavery.
	The Democratic Party protected slavery all through the Civil War.
	The Democratic Party reinstated Jim Crow.
	The Democratic Party basically cut a corrupt deal by which American federal troops were pulled out of the South after the Civil War, allowing the enshrinement of Jim Crow and the rise of the KKK, which was a Democratic Party functional organization.
	I mean, the 1924 Democratic National Convention was called the Klanbake, as in KKK Klanbake.
	Because there was an attempt to pass a resolution condemning the Klan, and it was voted down at the 1924 Democratic Party Convention.
	And obviously, the Democrats continued to back segregation all the way up until the end of segregation and Jim Crow.
	So what he's saying isn't wrong, and it's also still relevant, given the fact that the left continues to maintain that all of the issues in today's black community, the responsibility for that lies with history.
	It lies with slavery and Jim Crow.
	Well, if it lies with slavery and Jim Crow, that means it lies with the Democrats.
	Trump is right about that.
	The only problem, of course, is that Trump himself, he's made himself vulnerable to charges on this score.
	Joe Scarborough hits him this way.
	Until Donald Trump apologizes for his racist comments and gives me a reason to believe that we are still the party of Lincoln, that we are still the party that freed the slaves, that we are still the party that believes all Americans All Americans have the opportunity to rise to the top, not by government handouts, but by their own power and their own genius, with a helping hand from us.
	Until he proves that he belongs in the party of Reagan and Lincoln, he doesn't get my endorsement, he doesn't get my vote, he doesn't get my support.
	Who will say that in Washington, D.C.? ?
	Okay, so I have to say that it is amazing that Joe Scarborough, you know, who was a big Trump advocate, and again, increasingly each and every day looks more and more like Beaker from Muppets, that he feels, that he says that Trump doesn't have and Trump doesn't have the wherewithal to say all this.
	The problem for Trump is that Trump doesn't have the wherewithal to say all this because he has been flirting with the so-called alt-right.
	And we didn't have a chance to talk really about Hillary's alt-right speech last week.
	We sort of previewed it.
	We didn't talk about it in review.
	But it does raise the question, the rise of the alt-right.
	So to redefine the alt-right for people who are late to the game, the alt-right is a group of people who believe that Western civilization rests on ethnic solidarity.
	It rests on the European peoples.
	It rests on white people, essentially, preserving Western civilization.
	It doesn't rest on a universal code of ethics, a universal code of human civilization applicable at any time to all people who wish to join.
	Instead, if you have a diverse country with a lot of people of various different races who all believe in Western civilization, that's not something that the alt-right thinks can exist.
	The only way the alt-right thinks that Western civilization exists is if it's a bunch of white folks who are making that happen, right?
	Not Jews, not black people, white folks.
	So, one of the questions has been, what do you do to separate off the alt-right from Trump, from the conservative movement?
	Trump himself has gotten in bed with the alt-right, or at least he's flirted with them very heavily during this whole election cycle, which I've criticized ad infinitum, ad nauseam for a lot of my listeners, but there's one real I think most people, let me start again, I think most people on the conservative side of the aisle think the alt-right is gross.
	And they think that the alt-right's principles are gross and racist and vicious and have no part in conservatism.
	Because again, they don't resonate with the Constitution, they have nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, they have to do with ethnic solidarity.
	Most of the right believes that.
	But there is one segment of the mainstream right And this is the part that scares me.
	There's one segment of the mainstream right that is willing to go along with the winking and nodding at the alt-right because they feel like we have to make the political calculation to go along with an immoral, nasty movement in order to defeat Hillary Clinton.
	Now Trump does it by dog-whistling to them.
	Breitbart.com does it by jacking up their traffic and calling themselves the home of the alt-right by flirting with the alt-right.
	But there's a group of people, people who I respect and people who are voting for Trump, But don't necessarily think Trump is the greatest thing in the world, but they're voting for him.
	They support him, which is fine.
	Those people are trying to make room for the alt-right inside the tent.
	Jonah Goldberg has a piece in National Review today.
	He says there's no room for the alt-right inside the tent.
	I agree.
	There's no room for the alt-right inside the tent the same way there's no room for the John Birchers inside the tent in the 1960s.
	There are certain movements that you just don't want to be a part of or you don't want them to be a part of you.
	If individuals choose to vote how they choose to vote, that's their problem.
	But to wink and nod at movements that are really vicious, that's something that should be reserved to the left.
	And I'm sick of hearing from people on my own side of the aisle that the left embraces all these evil people and evil things, therefore it's okay for us to do it.
	That's not a good argument.
	The left does embrace evil people.
	They embrace racial solidarity, they embrace racism on a regular basis.
	That doesn't mean it's okay for you to do it.
	The I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I routine just, it doesn't work on any moral level.
	So, endemic to this, I think this is an important thing.
	Hugh Hewitt, who's somebody who I really respect and he's a very smart guy, he had an exchange with Jonah Goldberg about this column today.
	A really interesting exchange on his radio show.
	Here's what it sounded like.
	I'm speaking as a partisan now.
	As William F. Buckley led the effort to drive the Birchers out of the party, so must genuine conservatives drive out what you and I agree is the core alt-right.
	In the process of doing that, I do not want people who are not familiar with how you and I believe it to be understood by the people who invented the term to think that they are being exiled.
	That is my fear because I believe a lot of people, and I've seen it Everywhere I go, say they are alt-right and they don't know that Jonah Goldberg would then classify them as supremacists.
	Well, I wouldn't necessarily classify them as supremacists.
	Um, either, I would classify them as wrong.
	Yes.
	And what Goldberg is saying there is there are a lot of people who say they're alt-right but they don't know what the alt-right actually is or what it stands for.
	They're not Vox Dei alt-righters.
	They're not Jared Taylor alt-righters.
	They're just people who think because there's been confusion with the term that alt-right just means you don't like Paul Ryan.
	And that's the fault of people like Hugh Hewitt who's actually used the term alt-right to mean people who don't like Paul Ryan.
	I'm not a big Paul Ryan fan.
	I'm certainly not alt-right as the alt-right will tell you.
	Right?
	But this attempt to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, this idea that we have to kind of be kind to the alt-right a little bit so that we don't alienate the people who are associated with the alt-right, this leads to this really weird situation.
	And you'll see, this is Hugh's defense, sort of, of the association between Trump and the alt-right.
	Hugh quotes himself in this part of the radio show, he quotes himself from NBC News on Sunday on Chuck Todd's show, and then he talks a little.
	There is some discussion.
	I will say this.
	For every Steve Bannon and Breitbart, there is a David Brock in Media Matters.
	For every Ann Coulter, there's a Michael Moore.
	For every single Milo, there's a Mar.
	And so, Joan, I went on to say, the provocateurs are also entrepreneurs.
	This is just money being made.
	Do you agree with my parallelism, and do you agree that their motive is money?
	So for some of them, the motive is money, and he's right.
	And for some of them, it is about being a provocateur, like Milo is clearly about being a provocateur, although I don't know what's in his heart with regard to race.
	All I know is that he pals around with the worst kinds of people on the internet.
	But none of that really matters in the end.
	Here's why it doesn't really matter.
	Here's the final clip that I'll play from Hugh Hewitt and Jonah Goldberg's interview, which I thought was really informative.
	Hugh's a very talented host, and this exchange I thought was very valuable.
	Here's Hugh talking with Jonah Goldberg about the alt-right.
	But now here's the real problem is Paul Ryan's problem, Mitch McConnell's problem and Reince Priebus's problem, which is they have to exile the the alt-right as you and I have agreed to define it, but which I do not believe is generally agreed upon in the media to define it.
	And in fact, I believe the left will attempt to brand people as alt-right who are not alt-right, because there are some people with a foot in both camps.
	One of them is Ann Coulter.
	Another of them is Milo, right?
	These people live on on that border and they sell on that border.
	and it makes very hard to patrol that border.
	Yeah, well, I find it easy to patrol that border, because I want nothing to do with Ann Coulter, and I want nothing to do with Milo.
	I mean, I've known Ann for 20 years.
	I like Ann personally.
	I think the way she's behaved herself has been utterly repugnant and irresponsible.
	So this is the distinction, right?
	This is the key distinction.
	So Hugh says, I don't want to alienate Milo.
	I don't want to alienate Ann Coulter because they've got their foot on the border.
	So what do we do?
	So a little bit earlier this morning, I went on Twitter after this interview, and I had an exchange with Hugh Hewitt over this particular interview that he did.
	With Jonah Goldberg.
	It was kind of an interesting exchange.
	I initially asked Hugh Hewitt a very basic question.
	And the basic question that I asked, I want to get the wording right so I'm searching through my timeline right now to find it.
	I asked Hugh Hewitt, basically, well basically the concept of the question was, here it is, sorry, my apologies.
	Question.
	If we use Jonah Goldberg's definition of the alt-right, which is also my definition of the alt-right, how should conservatives treat those who pander to the alt-right, like Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos?
	And Hugh writes back, no one-size-fits-all answer there, Ben.
	Depends on whether the individual is persuadable or useful as example on air.
	And so I wrote back.
	I don't really know what that means, right?
	I wrote back to him, well, let's start with these.
	Who are the prominent panderers to the alt-right who are persuadable?
	Who are the Milo?
	I was saying to him, if you think Milo and Anne are persuadable to not be alt-right, then say that.
	Say that they're not alt-right, they're persuadable to not be alt-right, and we should work on converting them back from the alt-right.
	And I said, so who are the prominent panderers to the alt-right who are persuadable?
	Because if they're pandering to the alt-right and they're not persuadable, it's my view they should not be considered conservatives anymore.
	Now, this isn't a blacklist in the sense that there's no government coming in and blacklisting people.
	I'm not saying they should never write for any website again.
	All I'm saying is that we should be clear about who these people are, and we should say these people are not representative of the conservative movement.
	Ann Coulter, right now, flirting with Milo Yiannopoulos, is not representative of the conservative movement.
	She's representative of something else.
	And I think that Ann would actually recognize that truth.
	Milo doesn't even pretend to be conservative.
	Milo says, you know, I'm a nationalist populist.
	Conservatism is dead.
	We're the new—we're the new movement, right?
	I mean, he openly says it.
	And here's Hugh trying to hold on to their coattails, saying we can't throw them out of the party.
	We can't say they're not Republicans.
	We're—we can't alienate them.
	So Hugh writes back, posts a list of people who are pandering to the alt-right who are persuadable, and he says, I'll opine if I have an informed guess.
	And I tweeted back, let's start with these, Breitbart, Milo, and Colter Trump, right?
	All the people that you mentioned in this particular segment with Jonah Goldberg.
	And he then said, well, I need a list of 20 people.
	And at this point, it's clear he's avoiding the question, because he doesn't want to have to deal with the fact that Breitbart pandering to the alt-right makes them unacceptable in terms of conservative mainstream.
	He doesn't want to accept the fact that Milo and Ann Coulter have been behaving in ways that make them unacceptable in the conservative mainstream.
	And most of all, he doesn't want to accept the fact that Donald Trump's flirtation with the alt-right makes him a non-conservative guy who should not be acceptable to the conservative mainstream.
	And this is the problem.
	In the desire for victory, in the desire to defeat Hillary Clinton, yes, coalitional politics are necessary.
	Yes, coalitional politics are part of the game.
	But that doesn't mean you have to legitimize.
	It doesn't mean that you have to give credence to the ideological movement known as the alt-right or its spokespeople and its sponsors just because you want to win.
	That, in fact, puts you in some pretty bad company pretty quickly.
	So what I think he was trying to do here, and I don't like it.
	What he was trying to do here, and I think he would probably deny he was trying to do this, but in effect, this is what happens.
	Maybe he's not trying to do it.
	This is what the effect of it.
	The effect is, he says, let's excise the alt-right.
	Also, we don't know how to define the alt-right, so we can't excise anybody.
	Because I might throw out some good people with some bad people.
	Here's my view.
	We know exactly who the basic baseline alt-righters are.
	We know who the prominent alt-right flirters are, the panderers.
	And saying to them, you don't get to be part of our movement.
	You can vote however you want.
	You can speak with whomever you want.
	You can be on whatever radio show and TV show you want to be on.
	You can write for whomever you want.
	That's your prerogative.
	It's a free country.
	But you are not aligned with us.
	There's us and then there's you.
	Saying that to people who associate with the alt-right is a moral necessity.
	I think there are a lot of people who are willing to forego the moral necessity out of political convenience, and that I don't like at all.
	Speaking of some of those people, there's been this big kind of blow-up because Sean Hannity, who's now getting very worried that Donald Trump is going to lose, he spent the entire primary season saying that Trump was the only one who could win, the polls don't look particularly good for Trump, and so Sean Hannity lost it on his radio show again.
	This is like the second or third time he's done this particular routine.
	So here's what I say to all of you never-Trumpers.
	Glenn Beck, I hope you're listening.
	You own Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court appointments.
	You own it!
	You are doing everything you can do to cast doubt in people's minds.
	Trump gave us a list.
	You own her Supreme Court nominees.
	You own the unvetted refugees and the 550% increase she will bring into this country.
	You own the jobs that illegal immigrants will take from the 95 million Americans out of the labor force.
	You own Obamacare, which is a disaster for this country.
	You own education because she's beholden to the NEA.
	And if we don't improve the lives of 95 million Americans out of the labor force, I blame you for that too.
	He's gonna blame everybody, okay.
	Let me stop it there.
	So quick point number one.
	Quick point number one.
	I remember when Mitt Romney ran and lost.
	Do you remember people blaming the people who stayed home?
	I don't remember that.
	I don't.
	I was a Romney voter and a Romney supporter.
	I didn't support him in the primaries.
	I supported him in the general.
	I don't remember at any point saying, the people who stayed home for Mitt Romney, those are the people who are responsible for Barack Obama.
	I said, Mitt Romney's the candidate.
	He's responsible.
	He's responsible.
	And then there's something else.
	And here it is, okay?
	If you are somebody who ardently supported Donald Trump during the primaries, I don't just mean that you thought that he was the best of the bad candidates, I mean you ardently supported him.
	You were somebody who was lying to people by saying that he was conservative, slandering other candidates by propping up Donald Trump.
	If you are somebody who is using your airtime in order to push Donald Trump in the primaries over all the other candidates and then denying you were doing it, If you were somebody who said he was gonna be the strongest candidate, and now he's losing, and now you look around, it turns out he's a bad candidate, he's not conservative, and he's losing, and he's losing.
	They've actually invented a device just for you to help you determine who is responsible for Donald Trump losing and Hillary Clinton becoming president.
	You know, the people who pressed Donald Trump on us in the primaries.
	They've actually invented a device, and I've actually, somebody's given me one of these devices.
	It's a revolutionary device.
	Somebody's actually given me this device here today, and it will help you determine Who is responsible for Hillary Clinton and all the evil she's going to do as president if you supported Donald Trump ardently during the primaries, turned down all the other decent candidates who could have won, and instead we ended up with Trump?
	So here's that device.
	You see the device?
	You noticing the device?
	Yes.
	And it actually works two ways.
	It works that you hold it about seven inches from your face, right, just facing you.
	And then it tells you exactly, exactly who's responsible if you're one of these people.
	It works both horizontally as well as vertically.
	It's an amazing device.
	And you can get it for like 99 cents at Amazon.com.
	And I highly recommend that you take it and you look at it and you take a deep stare into it.
	And then maybe you'll finally determine who was responsible for this crappy candidate.
	You don't get to blame all the people who said that he was going to be a crappy candidate for him being a crappy candidate.
	And as far as the notion that in order to stop Hillary Clinton, I have to become a full-scale Chris Christie shinebox shill for Donald Trump, I'm not going to do it.
	I'm not going to do it.
	As I've said before and I'll say it again and I'll keep saying it until people get it, I'm going to tell you the truth about both candidates.
	You're big boys and big girls.
	You can make your own decision.
	If you choose to vote for Trump, good for you.
	That's your prerogative.
	If you choose to stay home, I hear you.
	And if you choose to vote for Hillary Clinton, I don't know what you're thinking, but the fact is that Sean Hannity dumping this all on the people who didn't want Trump in the first place, and the people who recognize that conservative thought leaders like Hannity, conservative thought leaders in the movement like Laura Ingraham, that these people have perverted the notion of conservatism to fit Donald Trump, and then told all of their listeners that this magical, mythical creature, this conservative creature who doesn't exist, that they like to call Donald Trump in their own heads,
	They say the people who don't support that, they're the traitors?
	No, you don't get to play this game.
	You don't get to play this game.
	Mark Levin basically said the same thing on his radio show yesterday.
	Where people cherry-pick polls, and they throw them up on their websites, and they cherry-pick polls, and they go on and on behind the microphones, and they cherry-pick polls.
	If only they're never Trumpers!
	If only Jonah Goldberg!
	And Bill Kristol!
	And Glenn Beck!
	And this one and that one, if only they'd get behind Trump, then we'd be winning!
	We'd win big time!
	Oh, yes!
	No, we wouldn't.
	And that's exactly right.
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	But it's more convenient to blame everybody else than to recognize your own fault in the matter, than to recognize your own fault in the matter.
	Here's what I will accept.
	Here's the responsibility I will accept.
	If we lose by one vote, if Donald Trump loses by one vote in California, okay, then it's my fault.
	Okay, anything else, it's Donald Trump's fault because he's the candidate.
	He's the one whose job it is to win people over.
	And even if he loses by one vote in California and it's me, it's sort of my fault and it's still sort of Trump's fault since he's the candidate and it's his job.
	And it's also the fault of the people who lied to push him through and lie now and are already seeking to cast dispersions on the people who refuse to go along with the lies about Donald Trump.
	Okay, again, I spent the first half of the show talking about how Donald Trump is doing better.
	I tell the truth about Donald Trump.
	When he does badly, he does badly.
	We don't have a segment on this show that's just called Bad Trump.
	We have Good Trump, Bad Trump, right?
	And some days, like today, there's a lot of Good Trump.
	And some days, like yesterday, there's a lot of Bad Trump.
	But that's just the way it goes.
	And I'm not gonna sell my immortal soul or my political career or my honesty to Donald Trump just because people are gonna blame me for quote-unquote Hillary Clinton's foibles over the next four years.
	That's your fault, gang.
	If you bought this, you bought it, you broke the story.
	You break it, you bought it.
	Okay, you wanted to tear down the Republican Party, and this is the result.
	Okay.
	Time for some things I like, then some things I hate, and then some quick Bible talk.
	So, things I like.
	We've turned this into Gene Wilder week.
	So, the best Gene Wilder movie, of course, is Blazing Saddles.
	And Gene Wilder is just great.
	He's so charming on screen.
	So, he plays the Waco kid.
	Alright, boys!
	On the count of three!
	I wouldn't do that if I were you.
	Don't pay no attention to that, Alky.
	but he supposedly is given up on life, basically, and he's a heavy drinker.
	Because the whole thing's a parody of Westerns.
	So here's a scene where the Waco Kid proves just how fast he is with the gun.
	All right, boys.
	On the count of three.
	I wouldn't do that if I were you.
	Don't pay no attention to that, Alky.
	He can't even hold a gun, much less shoot it.
	Like I said, on the count of three.
	One.
	Two.
	Three!
	Well, don't just sit there looking stupid, grasping your hands in pain.
	How about a little applause for the Waco kid?
	There are a couple of other scenes with Gene Wilder doing the same sort of thing.
	There's a great scene where he's sitting with Cleavon Little when Cleavon Little first meets him.
	And Cleavon Little, he says to Cleavon Little, I'm so fast with a gun, and my hands are so fast.
	I have the fastest hands in the West.
	My hands are so fast, they're playing chess.
	You take your hands and put them on either side of a pawn and go like that and try and catch the pawn.
	And of course, Cleavon Little goes like that.
	And you see him catch the pawn, right?
	And then he looks in, and the pawn's gone because Gene Wilder's taken it.
	It's a great movie.
	It's a really, really funny movie.
	And it's even funnier now, actually, than when it was done because of the politically correct left that's made it unacceptable to watch it.
	OK, other things that I like.
	Some people on staff insisted I put this in the things I like.
	So somebody has decided it was necessary to make an anime Ben Shapiro meme.
	So here's what it looked like.
	And I don't understand what any of this is, but someone will have to explain it to me later.
	Zankoku na tenshi no you ni Shounen yo shinwa ni naru And it says E-venge line, but I don't know what that means.
	And a lot of Japanese text.
	- - Okay, so all I can say is some people have too much time on their hands, or I paid our editors to put that together, one of the two, But no, this is actually just random people online put this stuff together, and I do get a kick out of it, so feel free to keep doing it.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So, let's wait for it for a second.
	Okay, fine.
	Things I hate.
	And we played the liner.
	Yay.
	Okay, now we're all happy.
	Fine, Jonathan.
	Fine.
	Okay, so we'll start off with John Legend.
	So John Legend, let it be known, is the guy who produced that masterwork of cinematography and genius that would be known as South Side With You.
	Also known as the Obama first date movie that no one has ever seen or will ever see.
	He produced that.
	He's now come out and he says the national anthem is weak.
	He doesn't like the national anthem.
	He tweeted out, for those defending the current anthem, do you really truly love that song?
	I don't, and I'm very good at singing it.
	Like, one of the best.
	First of all, he sounds like Trump there.
	My vote is for America the Beautiful.
	Star Spangled Banner is a weak song anyway, and then you read this, and then it's a link talking about how the Star Spangled Banner is racist.
	So, let's talk about the Star Spangled Banner and whether it is racist or not.
	First of all, it is true that the original third stanza of the Star Spangled Banner contains a reference to slavery.
	So we only know the first stanza, that's the one that everybody knows and sings at the ballgame, but there was a stanza in which it talked about slavery at one point inside the Star Spangled Banner.
	There are people who say that this celebrates the murder of African Americans.
	Frederick Douglass, who was a freed slave, obviously didn't feel that way.
	He played the Star Spangled Banner on his violin for his grandkids after the war.
	There's a really great piece on this by a friend of mine named Jarrett Stepman, who I knew from Breitbart days.
	He now writes for The Daily Signal.
	And he talks about the origins of the Star Spangled Banner.
	Here's the bottom line.
	Nobody thinks of the Star Spangled Banner as an endorsement of slavery.
	It was written in 1812 by Francis Scott Key during the middle of the 1812 war with the British.
	I have to say that when it comes to the musical merits of the song, I'm with John Legend.
	I really don't think it's a very good song musically.
	In the list of great musicals, I'm not talking about the themes of the songs, I'm not talking about the character of the countries, but if you talk about just musically great national anthems, The Marseillaise is a great National Anthem.
	Actually, the Soviet National Anthem is a very stirring, musical National Anthem.
	The Canadian National Anthem is great.
	The United States National Anthem, it was an old British drinking song.
	That's where the tune comes from.
	But the bottom line is, the National Anthem doesn't represent slavery.
	The National Anthem is the flag.
	It was the song that was being sung by men who were going off to war to die in defense of liberty in an attempt to destroy slavery.
	And as Jarrett writes at Daily Signal, it's clear Frederick Douglass knew that, and people generally get this.
	They get that the national anthem is not a slave theme, it's a freedom theme, and just because the guy who wrote it was a slave owner doesn't mean that the character of the song doesn't mean what it means now or what it's meant for the last 170 odd years.
	Okay, other things that I don't like today.
	Stephen Colbert, who I never like, he's on late night TV and he's making fun of Sarah Palin.
	Sarah Palin, there's a lot of criticism of Sarah Palin that is entirely merited.
	But there's an absolute double standard when it comes to the media treatment of Sarah Palin.
	So here's Stephen Colbert going after Sarah Palin.
	Anyway, uh, she is injured and I'd like to wish Sarah Palin a speedy recovery.
	And I'd like to do it in a language she'll understand.
	So first...
	Governor Palin, hope you rest up there.
	Heck, what with the rock runnin' and the stone skippin' and the boulder bingo.
	Remember, my middle name is Tyrone, with the media cover up at the danger zone and everybody's cuttin' foot loose.
	Loosey-goosey, good for the gander.
	Good for the planner of the down-dog wedding.
	Oh, the cookies are ready.
	Hey, track, trig, trig, track, break your mama's back.
	Why?
	Because our veterans drill, baby, drill.
	Try our mozzarella sticks.
	Ask me about free shipping.
	God bless it.
	Just leave us alone, voices.
	So he actually starts that off for people who can't see by taking a fake rock and hitting himself in the head with it, because that's the language that she understands.
	And then he goes into that long, ridiculous sort of stream of consciousness gobbledygook.
	The idea here, of course, is that Sarah Palin speaks in funny syntax.
	Sarah Palin's syntax is not the greatest.
	I mean, if you tried to do a tree diagram of her sentence structure, it would look kind of complicated.
	You never see him do this with anybody on the left, ever.
	There are people on the left who speak significantly worse than Sarah Palin does, and Stephen Colbert never has a word to say about it.
	I also don't know why this is funny.
	I mean, I'm watching it, and there's some lefty humor that's funny.
	Conan O'Brien is a lefty who's funny.
	I don't know what happened to Stephen Colbert.
	It's like he fell off the unfunny tree and hit every branch on the way down.
	It's really bad stuff.
	I don't know whose writers are, but they ought to be fired, and he ought to be fired.
	He's done a terrible job with the late show.
	Okay.
	Finally, time for a little bit of biblical commentary.
	It is a Wednesday.
	As I explain every week here at this time, Jewish communities all over the world read a different section of the Torah, of the five books of Moses.
	And that means that by the end of the year, we read a different section of the Torah every week.
	And so by the end of the year, we've read the entire five books of Moses.
	We've read the entire Torah.
	So this week's portion is a portion called A. It comes from Deuteronomy.
	And particularly I want to focus on Deuteronomy 15, 7-11.
	So here it is.
	So here it is.
	In Jewish theology, on the seventh year, there is something that was designed to basically revert all loans to zero.
	You will begrudge your needy brother and not give him, and he will cry out to the Lord against you, and it will be a sin against you.
	You shall surely give him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give him.
	For because of this thing, the Lord your God will bless you in all of your work and all of your endeavors.
	And then this is the part that's really interesting.
	It says, for there will never cease to be needy within the land.
	A couple things to point out here.
	One, nowhere in here does it say that your ruling government shall take the charity from you and redistribute it.
	In fact, nowhere in here does it even discuss charity.
	What it's talking about is loans.
	Loans that are designed to be paid back.
	The idea is that when you are trying to help somebody out with money, In order to hold them to a certain standard of being a human being, they have to understand that they're not getting off scot-free, that they have to give something of themselves in return for your money.
	And what they're giving of themselves is their honor.
	This is how people think in terms of lending, in terms of loans.
	Have you ever seen the movie Cinderella Man?
	There's a great scene in Cinderella Man where Russell Crowe is playing Jim Braddock.
	He goes down to the welfare office, takes some welfare.
	He becomes big, right?
	He's able to become a famous boxer.
	And he goes and he takes the money back to the welfare office and gives the money back to the welfare office.
	And it's seen as sort of a restoration of his honor, a restoration of his dignity.
	Taking money from other people should not be and is not a dignified act.
	It's a very difficult act spiritually for people.
	And it should be a spiritual act that's difficult for people.
	And that's why God talks about you need to lend to your friends, right?
	You give it to them as a loan.
	Now maybe you lose the money.
	Maybe the money's gone.
	Maybe you've written it off in your own head.
	But the bottom line is that the person should know that they are expected not to take the money and blow it.
	But to use the money for its design purpose and then to build themselves up to the point where they can pay you back, which will allow them to regain their dignity and their honor so that they're no longer in your debt.
	That's point number one here.
	Point number two, and this is the one that I think is really interesting, is that the Bible sees fit, God sees fit to say, there will never cease to be needy within the land.
	That right there is an absolute, it's an absolute devastation of the Marxist position.
	The Marxist position on life is that there will, there need not be needy in the land.
	That communism should alleviate all poverty.
	And that if we alleviated all poverty, everything would be great.
	Everything would be all better.
	If we just got rid of all the poverty, we took all the rich people's money and gave it to all the poor people, and we all live together as one, right, in the John Lennon Imagine concept, everything would be good.
	God says that's not the way the world works.
	Even in communist countries, there are poor.
	In fact, everyone's poor in a communist country.
	Check out Venezuela, which is working out just great.
	I have a friend I just talked to, just got back from Venezuela, watched a guy got shot ten feet in front of him, and actually went on a dog hunt with some of the starving people of Venezuela.
	They literally go around Caracas, Venezuela, hunting dogs to eat.
	That's what redistributionism and communism brings about in its most extreme fashion.
	But God says, there's never going to cease to be needy.
	There will always be people who need money.
	There will always be poor people.
	Therefore, it's imperative that you open up your hand to that person.
	So, two questions.
	One is, why God designed it this way?
	Why did God design it so that there would always be poor people?
	Why didn't he make it so that everybody would be rich?
	And the answer is twofold.
	One is, that when it comes to personal responsibility, and this is just the way that God designed the system, the more personally responsible you are, the less chance you are going to be one of those needy.
	And second of all, God gives you free will.
	God gives you free will.
	And that free will has consequences.
	And so the idea that God created the needy out there, that is a spur to you to be more responsible.
	It's also a spur to you to be kinder and recognize that your money is not your own.
	Right?
	To recognize that there will always be needy.
	You're not one of them, but that's the way God designed the system.
	And so you really can't take credit for your own wealth to a certain extent.
	You have to understand that the entire universe is God's, and therefore you have a responsibility to those poor people.
	The second question that arises from, will there never cease to be needy within the land, is not why God made it that way, but why can't we fix that?
	And the answer is because it is beyond the power of human beings to fix cosmic injustice.
	This is something Thomas Sowell talks about and something the left doesn't understand.
	Life is not fair.
	Lots of things happen that are not fair.
	You know, I have a little girl who's two and a half years old, and she's been very sick before.
	That's not fair.
	It's not.
	We all experience tragedies in our life that are not fair.
	Things where you look at it, children suffering is the easiest one, but you see it all over the place.
	People who are good having bad things happen to them.
	People who are bad having good things happen to them.
	Life isn't fair.
	It's not the job of human beings to correct cosmic injustices.
	It's the responsibility of human beings to correct human exploitation.
	If you do something wrong, or you see someone else doing something wrong, that you can correct.
	But the idea that you're going to be able to fix every problem in the universe, you are not God.
	Marxism, the left, they substitute human beings collectively for God as a whole, and the end result is more needy people, not less needy people, not fewer needy people.
	So God is reminding you here, okay, there will always be needy within the land.
	That doesn't absolve you of your responsibility, right?
	You still have to give.
	That doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to give and give loans and try and help people out, but it is a recognition that your job in doing that is to fulfill your responsibility as a human being, not to fix the cosmic injustices that God set into the groundwork of the universe.
	Well, we'll be back tomorrow.
	Tomorrow is, of course, the vaunted mailbag, and we'll find out what happened in Mexico, because President Trump is going down to Mexico, and I assume that things will get spicy.
	So we will talk about that.
	Lots happening.
	And we'll be back tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲