Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 1, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:00:55

Ep. 176 - Trump Has His Finest Hour

Trump travels to Mexico, then talks immigration; Colin Kaepernick is a bad human being; and the vaunted mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	If you ever wanted proof the left hates Republicans, it came in the form of a CNN headline news decision late yesterday.
	A man named Stephen Eckold saved a baby from being trapped in a hot car.
	He broke a window to do so.
	During his interview on CNN headline news, he wore a Trump 2016 t-shirt.
	The network couldn't do anything about it at the time, but when they rebroadcast the interview, they then blurred out the Donald Trump logo.
	That's fairly typical for a media intent on casting every Trump supporter as an evil pile of human poop.
	Meanwhile, the media continued to celebrate 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who donned a different sort of apparel and practice, socks, Really, it's like a picture of a pig with a cop hat on top.
	But Colin Kaepernick is the bravest, most wonderful, most brilliant racial spokesperson in America.
	We must all pay homage to his intellect and courage.
	No wonder college students across America feel triggered by Trump 2016 chalkings but have no problem slandering cops.
	They're learning it from the older generation in media.
	That's the point.
	Those who disagree politically with the left must be castigated.
	And if an eminently good person openly disagrees with the left, the left simply excises their politics from the equation.
	So, a Trump supporter who saves a baby from death inside a burning hot car, he becomes just another kind-hearted fellow with unknown politics.
	They just blur out the t-shirt.
	If you agree with the left, however, they'll ignore your nastiness.
	You'll become a civil rights spokesperson and will simply overlook the fact that you're viciously anti-cop.
	Thus, the left's moral juggernaut chugs ever forward, turning right-wingers into enemies and left-wing radicals into friendly faces.
	No wonder Republicans are always fighting an uphill battle in the public mind.
	Members of the public have never actually seen a nice, decent Republican, since the media just memory holes them.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	So lots to get to today here on The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Obviously we'll be talking a lot about Donald Trump's trip down to Mexico, way down in Mexico, and he also went up to Phoenix and talked about illegal immigration.
	We'll get to all of that momentarily.
	First, we have to thank our new sponsors over at Club W.
	So Club W is this fantastic website.
	What they do is they have this website.
	And if you don't know anything about wine, like I don't know anything about wine.
	And you go to their website.
	You type in a bunch of taste preferences that seemingly have nothing to do with wine.
	You tell them what kind of tastes you enjoy.
	And then they kind of tailor a set of products for you, the kind of wine that you want.
	And you can buy it online.
	It's much cheaper than doing it at the local liquor store.
	And it helps if you're looking for just the right wine for the special someone.
	If you're looking for just the right wine for a dinner party and you don't know anything about wine.
	Like for me, I just like wine that tastes like soda pop.
	This is the place you go if you don't know anything about wine, but you don't want to look like an unsophisticated boor.
	If you go to Club W right now, then it's clubw.com slash ben, you get $20 off your first order right now.
	As I've said, they don't have kosher wine, so I haven't tasted the wine.
	But my entire staff has tasted the wine, to the detriment of the company.
	And they sent the samples here, and people loved the wine a little too much, because not a lot of work got done that day.
	But the wine was apparently really good, from what I'm told by all of the people who tasted the wine.
	Here are some of the descriptions, according to them.
	They said the Sauvignon Blanc was oaked fruit forward with hints of pear.
	The Malbec?
	How do you pronounce it?
	See, I don't know anything about wine.
	This is why you need Club W.
	Malbec, OK.
	Silky.
	I can't believe it's not buttery.
	They said that they liked the Chardonnay the best, and apparently a guy in our office opened the wine bottle with the shoe trick.
	If you have someone in your office who has a shoe, then you, too, can have this wine.
	You go to clubw.com and spend $20 off your first order.
	Again, the wine is cheap.
	It is also apparently really good, and it allows you to pick the best wine for your dinner party.
	That's exciting stuff.
	OK.
	So, Donald Trump is down in Mexico.
	He goes down to Mexico yesterday, and there's a lot of lead-up to him going down to Mexico, a lot of fuss about what was going to happen.
	I sort of laid out the possible options.
	It turned out he was sort of halfway between two of my options that I mentioned yesterday, what actually happened.
	But we'll start with Vincente Fox, the former president of Mexico.
	He said that Trump would be rejected by everybody in Mexico.
	Now you seem very angry again.
	What happened?
	That you do what I did as a citizen.
	And that you do as a Mexican that is worried about Trump becoming president in the United States.
	You don't do that as president of this great nation, which is Mexico, representing 130 million people.
	I'm sure he's going to be rejected by everybody here in Mexico.
	We cannot accept this going on.
	And yes, it could be a desperate move.
	He's just a day ahead or a day in advance of his address to the union, equivalent here in Mexico.
	And yeah, to me, it is a desperate move on both sides.
	Okay, it's a desperate move on both sides is what Vincente Fox and his mustache have to say about Donald Trump going down to Mexico.
	Now, brief kind of timeout.
	Here are the two narratives that have now emerged after Trump's trip to Mexico and his immigration speech.
	And over the course of the program, we'll determine which one of these narratives is correct or if they're both correct.
	Narrative number one is the pro-Trump narrative.
	So the pro-Trump narrative says yesterday was the biggest success of the Trump campaign.
	It was his best hour.
	It was the best thing that he's done in the campaign so far.
	He went down to Mexico.
	He looked stayed.
	He looked sober.
	He didn't go down and vomit on somebody, so it's a big success.
	And therefore, you know, big win for him.
	He shakes the hand of the president of Mexico.
	The president of Mexico doesn't slam him.
	And then he goes to Phoenix, and he gives a very strong immigration speech, which is very heavy on policy.
	He does walk back a little bit, kind of.
	He kind of vaguely walks back the idea that he's going to deport everybody, but in such a way that it sounds like he might still deport everybody.
	So big win for Donald Trump.
	That's the narrative from the Trump camp.
	The narrative from the mainstream media is Trump goes down.
	He appears sober.
	But it turns out that he fibs, right?
	He goes down there and he says that we didn't talk.
	Nieto, the president of Mexico, Peña Nieto.
	We didn't talk about who was going to pay for the magical Trump wall.
	We never had that conversation.
	And Pena Nieto comes back a few hours later, and he says, no, we actually did have that conversation.
	I told him I wasn't paying for the wall, so Trump lied.
	And then Trump goes to Phoenix, and he's supposed to be giving this kind of moderating, softening pitch.
	And instead, he gives a raw meat, red meat speech to his base of supporters who are very enthusiastic.
	And he doesn't soften anything at all, so big loss.
	The media says big loss.
	Trump's people say big win.
	So now we're going to talk about what actually happened.
	I think there's some truth on both sides here, actually.
	So Trump You know, goes down to Mexico and he's speaking with Enrique Peña Nieto, who is the president of Mexico.
	Prosperity and happiness in both of our countries will increase if we work together on the following five shared goals.
	Number one, ending illegal immigration.
	Not just between our two countries, but including the illegal immigration and migration From Central and South Americans and from other regions that impact security and finances.
	Number two, having a secure border is a sovereign right and mutually beneficial.
	We recognize and respect the right of either country to build a physical barrier or wall on any of its borders to stop the illegal movement of people, drugs, Improving NAFTA, number four.
	NAFTA is a 22-year-old agreement that must be updated to reflect the realities of today.
	across our border.
	Improving NAFTA, number four.
	NAFTA is a 22-year-old agreement that must be updated to reflect the realities of today.
	There are many improvements that could be made that would make both Mexico and the United States stronger and keep industry in our hemisphere.
	Number five, keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere.
	We can stop it there.
	So bottom line is that he goes there and he speaks out all of his priorities.
	We're going to stop illegal immigration.
	We're going to build a wall.
	So here's what this was and here's what this wasn't.
	It was Trump appearing sober, which was important because the rip on him from Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is that he's a complete nutcase.
	He's going to go down there and he's going to start launching nuclear weapons.
	He was going to walk in with a mariachi band and a taco bowl, present it to Peña Nieto, and then annex the country, right?
	That's the way that Hillary Clinton was basically speaking about how Donald Trump was going to act.
	He didn't do that.
	He appeared sober.
	He appeared staid.
	Honestly, it looks like he took a couple of Valium, and that wasn't a bad look for him.
	What this does demonstrate, by the way, is that Donald Trump's standard, the standard to which we hold Donald Trump, and I think this is actually smart politically for him, is much lower than it would be for a normal politician.
	He doesn't have to be interesting, he doesn't have to say anything exciting.
	He can go down there, give a normal speech, and we treat him like we treat a two-year-old who just peed in the potty for the first time.
	We just do a big, big round of applause.
	It's an amazing, amazing showing.
	I thought the most amusing aspect of this was Laura Ingraham coming out after this and saying, isn't it great that we just had such a successful meeting with our chief trading partner?
	I thought you hated NAFTA, Laura.
	I thought that was your whole deal.
	But in any case, Trump, you know, Trump gives this statement.
	He appears sober and he appears not crazy.
	And that's the whole thing.
	I mean, the whole thing here is he has to look not crazy on the international stage.
	It's a big win.
	The media acknowledged that it's a big win.
	And then Trump is asked about the wall.
	Did you speak about whether someone would pay for the wall?
	Well, I'll start.
	I mean, nothing like an easy question like that.
	We did discuss the wall.
	We didn't discuss payment of the wall.
	That'll be for a later date.
	This was a very preliminary meeting.
	I think it was an excellent meeting.
	And we are, I think we're very well on our way.
	A lot of the things I said are very strong, but we have to be strong.
	We have to say what's happening.
	There is crime, as you know.
	So he goes along these lines.
	So great.
	I mean, he says, we didn't discuss it.
	And that's fine.
	A lot of people who are kind of cynically trying to bash Trump, they say, well, you know, why didn't he discuss it?
	That's him being weak.
	You can't have it both ways.
	Either you want him to pivot or you don't want him to pivot.
	If you want him to pivot, then he can't discuss it.
	If you don't want him to pivot, then you wish that he had mentioned it.
	But then you have to be ideologically consistent and condemn his new pivot altogether.
	Charles Krauthammer, who's not a Trump fan.
	I mean, obviously I'm not a Trump fan either.
	Pretty much everybody.
	Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, all the people who you would think of as sort of the people who don't love Trump, to say the least.
	They said that Trump helped himself with this particular jaunt to Mexico.
	And it put Trump on the international stage.
	Do you think it'll help him?
	Yes.
	He took a risk and he pulled it off.
	Look, the big negative about Trump, the thing that the Clinton campaign plays on, is the fact that it's hard to imagine him as president.
	Being presidential is the thing he's been trying to do.
	His staff has been trying to get for him for the last six months.
	Now here he is standing on the world stage with a world leader.
	This is a big step.
	He not only held his own, I think in some ways he sort of dominated.
	The Mexican president was rather defensive, asking for respect.
	Trump, I thought, spoke well.
	And then if you noticed at the very end when they took questions, it was Trump who took charge.
	He's sitting in the palace of the president of Mexico.
	This never happens.
	Normally, it's the host who picks the journalist.
	Trump took charge naturally, walked off the stage as the dominant guy.
	He pulled it off.
	I think he really helped himself.
	Okay, and I agree.
	I thought that he helped himself yesterday.
	I wrote a piece about it right afterward.
	Hours later, the Mexican government comes out and they say Trump lied.
	When he said we didn't talk about payment for the wall, that's not true.
	Here's a Mexican spokesperson saying, yeah, we mentioned the wall.
	So according to Reuters, quote, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Wednesday told Donald Trump Mexico would not pay for the Republican presidential candidate's proposed wall along the border.
	According to Eduardo Sanchez, presidential spokesman, he said what the president said is that Mexico, as has been said on several occasions, will not pay for that wall.
	So it sounds like Trump fibbed.
	Now, again, I don't think that hurts Trump too badly, because he said right in front of Peña Nieto that we didn't talk about it, and Peña Nieto let it go.
	So it looked like a little bit of sour grapes.
	It looked like kind of Seinfeld jerk-storing, like he's coming about late to the party and trying to buy it back.
	But it does cast a slight gloss on a little bit of a scar on what was a pretty blemish-free appearance by Donald Trump.
	Then Donald Trump goes to Phoenix.
	Then Donald Trump goes to Phoenix.
	And Donald Trump gives this speech in Phoenix.
	Now, to lead off, I think it's important to mention a couple of things.
	One, The speech was not at a policy conference.
	It was not a policy center.
	I think this was a mistake.
	If you're going to give a big pivot policy speech, you don't do it to a rah-rah cheering crowd of people who are also cheering when you said you wanted to deport 11 million people.
	If you're going to actually pivot on that issue, you don't do it in front of the red meat base.
	You actually do it at like Heritage Foundation so that the crowd isn't cheering all of the lines that are the most militant And going silent at all the lines that are the most pivot-friendly.
	That's if you're trying to pivot, which Trump, I think, was trying to do.
	That's number one.
	Number two, the theatrics here.
	There's one element of theatricality that I thought was good, but there are other elements that were pretty incredible.
	You had Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Sessions walking on stage at this event wearing hats that said, Make Mexico Great Again Also.
	I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, other than it seems like a slap in Mexico, right?
	I don't know, are we going to invade?
	Are we going to take it over?
	Is it going to be like the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli?
	I mean, are we going to go Woodrow Wilson-style in there?
	It's bizarre.
	But Trump gives this speech.
	And so here's my initial take.
	I read the speech last night.
	I didn't watch the speech.
	I read it.
	And when I read the speech, I thought, this is a very well-stated policy position for Republicans on immigration.
	I thought it's a really well-stated speech.
	I thought that it mirrored Ted Cruz's position on immigration in the primaries, which is the position I supported.
	I thought that this was a very, very strong speech.
	And that was sort of widely accepted on the conservative right.
	We looked at the speech.
	We said, on policy, this is really good.
	There were some holes on it when it got to deportation, but it's okay to leave that vague.
	You don't have to talk about what you're gonna do 10 years from now when we finally secured the border.
	You can kind of say, okay, we'll leave that to 10 years from now when we finally secured the border.
	So let's go through Trump's speech.
	There was a distinction, as I say.
	One of the problems for Trump was that Trump is a showman.
	Because Trump is a showman, he tends to perform to the live audience in front of him.
	Now, as somebody who's done this before, I give speeches all the time, it's hard not to respond to the audience right in front of you as opposed to the audience that's outside the camera coming through your TV screen.
	Trump should know this because he's been on TV so much, but he tends to respond to the people in the room like a musician would.
	If you're a musician and you're playing a concert, I'm a violinist, if you're a musician, you're playing a concert and people are clanking their way through dinner, Then you're going to start getting angry.
	You might play faster.
	You might play louder to try and get their attention.
	Trump responds to the crowd.
	And because he responds to the crowd here, He ends up sounding more extreme than the text of the speech makes it out to be.
	And that allows the left to create their own narrative of what Trump was actually doing here.
	What he was trying to do was pivot while still maintaining a strong immigration position.
	I think the text of the speech did that.
	I also see why the left would seize on the sort of militance of Trump's tone as well as the vagary of his language to suggest that he wasn't really pivoting at all.
	So we'll go through that in just a second.
	But first I want to mention our friends at U.S.
	Tax Shield.
	So look, the federal government at this point is going to come after everybody for as much money as they can since we're basically bankrupt.
	So that means that you should really have your taxes in order.
	If you're somebody who has not had their taxes in order, if you're somebody who actually has run into trouble with the IRS, you need to talk to my friends over at US Tax Shield.
	They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	It's not.
	It shouldn't be embarrassing that you have tax problems with the IRS.
	Lots and lots of people do.
	But you need to solve it right now rather than sitting on it and waiting and hoping that it goes away.
	You don't want to play footsie with the IRS.
	They don't play games.
	It's the one area of the government that is actually efficient at its job because their job is to take your money.
	They specialize in helping people who have problems with the IRS.
	People with personal tax liabilities and business payroll taxes, fees and penalties.
	So you call them for a free consultation at 800-542-2226, 800-542-2226, or you can visit them online at ustaxshield.com slash ben, that's ustaxshield.com slash ben, make sure it's, yeah, the slash ben reminds them that we sent you, and that's great for us, great for you, you get a good product, and they continue to advertise with us and pay for all of the people who haven't paid their taxes in this room.
	When you call for your free consultation, they'll have a tax consultant on the phone and they'll actually call the IRS hotline with you and start the process and they'll walk you through the process and they'll give you a baseline estimate, a guaranteed quote that never increases at any time.
	They have a fresh start program helping you come clean with the IRS and negotiate a solution.
	Again, their number at U.S.
	U.S. Tax Shield is 800-542-2226, ustaxshield.com slash Ben.
	Okay, unfortunately, that brings us to the end of our Facebook Live and YouTube.
	If you want to hear my full analysis of Donald Trump's speech, plus we got the mailbag coming up, plus we have so many things I like and so many things I hate.
	It's a jam-packed show, most jam-packed hour in podcast and in media.
	Dailywire.com is where you subscribe so you can see everything and so you can email us for the mailbag, which we're doing today.
	Dailywire.com, eight bucks a month.
	It seems like a cheap price to pay for the privilege of spending time with me, gang.
	Come on.
	I mean, I make my wife pay more than that.
	So dailywire.com if you want to become a subscriber.
	If you just want to listen later, you can go to iTunes or SoundCloud.
	We are the number one conservative podcast in America.
	So there's two things to pay attention to in Donald Trump's speech.
	One is the policy, which we'll talk about, which was very good.
	Two is the tone, which was not as good, the tone in the crowd, which was not as good.
	And three was the key point, did he shift his position?
	Did he shift his position?
	Because the New York Times got itself in trouble.
	They wrote an entire lead today, the entire lead to their piece about Trump's speech, which they had to release early, was Trump pivot.
	And then it turned out that Trump didn't really pivot very hard.
	They had to rewrite and pull down their entire piece and rewrite it.
	This is the trouble with pre-writing all of your analysis.
	So here's Donald Trump yesterday in Phoenix.
	He says that he's just landed, having returned from Mexico, and here's how he says that went.
	I've just landed, having returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico, a man I like and respect very much, and a man who truly loves his country, Mexico.
	And by the way, just like I am a man who loves my country, the United States.
	We agreed on the importance of ending the illegal flow of drugs, cash, guns, and people across our border, and guns, and people across our border, and to put the cartels out of business. -
	We also discussed the great contributions of Mexican-American citizens to our two countries, my love for the people of Mexico, and the leadership and friendship that we have between Mexico and the United States.
	So we can pause it here.
	So I just want to read you the text as it was written.
	Okay, so he's reading it as it was written, but here's how it should have been read.
	This is just a political note.
	You hear him kind of screaming this out, and when he reads it this way, it sounds like there's a severe competition.
	Doesn't it sound like there's a severe competition between the United States and Mexico?
	He loves his country.
	Well, screw him.
	I love my country.
	The way that this was supposed to read on the page, this is sort of the problem with reading his speeches as opposed to watching them, the way that it reads on the stage, on the text, is like this.
	I've just landed, having returned from a very important and special meeting with the President of Mexico, a man I respect and like very much, and a man who really loves his country, just as I'm a person who loves the United States.
	Right?
	That's how it's supposed to be.
	It's not supposed to be It's not supposed to be, I love my country just as much as he loves his, it's supposed to be, he loves his country just as much as I love my country, right?
	That's the actual reading.
	He reads it opposite, right?
	He reads it, so the emphasis is, I love my country more than he does, he loves his country, I love my country more, and that's why I'm gonna schlong him in a deal, right?
	That's sort of the way that it reads, just in terms of tonality.
	That's not how it reads on the page.
	He goes on along these lines, he says, he starts talking about how we're gonna talk about immigration honestly.
	Now again, the content of this But if we're going to make our immigration system work, then we have to be prepared to talk honestly and without fear about these important and very sensitive issues.
	Donald Trump.
	But if we're going to make our immigration system work, then we have to be prepared to talk honestly and without fear about these important and very sensitive issues.
	For instance, we have to listen to the concerns that working people, our forgotten working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, housing, schools, tax bills, and general living conditions.
	These are valid concerns expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds, all over.
	We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate.
	Sometimes it's just not going to work out.
	It's our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish and love us.
	Okay, again, the content here is 100% correct.
	What he says here is exactly right.
	That there are a lot of people in the United States who feel this way about immigration.
	It doesn't mean they're bigots, it doesn't mean they're xenophobes, and people should stop pretending that they are.
	And he's exactly right when he says, not everyone who's joining the country will be able to successfully assimilate.
	And he says it's our right as a sovereign nation to choose people we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish.
	This should be him trying to convince.
	Instead, it sounds like he's kind of beating people down.
	Again, the contrast between the content and the tone is a little bit of a problem.
	I don't think that it's a huge problem, but I think part of it is, again, he's giving it in a big auditorium with an echoey microphone, with a big crowd behind him cheering what he's saying.
	He continues along the lines, again, the content here is excellent.
	He talks about the issue of security.
	This is excellent content.
	Then there is the issue of security.
	Countless innocent American lives have been stolen because our politicians have failed in their duty to secure our borders and enforce our laws like they have to be enforced.
	I have met With many of the great parents who lost their children to sanctuary cities and open borders.
	So many people.
	So many, many people.
	So sad.
	They will be joining me on the stage in a little while and I look forward to introducing.
	These are amazing, amazing people.
	Again, the crowd here is the problem.
	What he's saying here is not the problem.
	The crowd cheering, the crowd kind of yelling, it adds the feeling that this is sort of a rabble-rousing speech, when in reality, this is not a rabble-rousing speech.
	This is a policy speech.
	And if you give a policy speech, you don't need people yelling in the background.
	That's a mistake of imagistic.
	But everything that he's saying here is, of course, exactly right.
	Then he continues along these lines.
	He talks about who are the illegal immigrants who are actually coming to the United States.
	While there are many illegal immigrants in our country, Who are good people.
	Many, many.
	This doesn't change the fact that most illegal immigrants are lower skilled workers with less education who compete directly against vulnerable American workers and that these illegal workers draw much more out from the system than they can ever possibly pay back.
	And they're hurting a lot of our people that cannot get jobs under any circumstances.
	Okay, that last line wasn't in the original text, as I understand it.
	They're hurting a lot of people that cannot get any jobs under any circumstances.
	Again, this is putting a moral onus on people who just want to get a job, and it sounds harsher than it actually is.
	The whole tone here should be, I'm just stating facts, okay?
	These are just the facts.
	The vast majority of people who are coming into the country are good people.
	That doesn't change the fact that it does lower the wage rate when you have a broader labor pool, especially of people who are not subject to minimum wage.
	I just said the same thing he did, except it doesn't sound as militant, right?
	He continues, but again, I want to point out the difference between content and tone, because what people tend to take away from these speeches is not the 90 minutes of content, it tends to be the 30 seconds of tone that you get from a YouTube clip, or that you get from listening on the radio.
	That's what you get, right?
	What you get is, is he yelling, is he not?
	If he's yelling, that means he's angry.
	If he's angry, that means he's angry at somebody.
	If he's angry at somebody, he's angry at illegal immigrants, that means he hates illegal immigrants and wants to harm them.
	That's the way the human brain works.
	Most of the judgments we make about how people think are based on our initial takeaway from what they project in terms of feeling.
	And this is why it was a mistake to do the speech this way.
	But we'll put that behind because I don't have to keep reiterating the same point.
	Now let's focus a little bit on the actual content of the speech.
	And again, I think a lot of this, he's really, really good.
	He says, he talks about the fact that the media have misprioritized this entire deal.
	But these facts are never reported.
	Instead, the media and my opponent discuss one thing and only one thing.
	The needs of people living here illegally.
	In many cases, by the way, they're treated better than our vets.
	Not going to happen anymore, folks.
	November 8th.
	Not going to happen anymore.
	Right, that sounds like mass deportation.
	Right, it sounds like mass deportation.
	And he's right that the central issue in illegal immigration should not be the people who are here.
	Everybody treats it like it's an urgent problem that people are living here illegally.
	It's not an urgent problem.
	It's been happening for literally decades.
	Nothing has changed.
	The only urgent problem is the safety concern and stopping the continuation of the flow into the country, and then we can figure out what to do with these folks.
	That was the Rubio plan.
	That was the Jeb Bush plan.
	That was the Ted Cruz plan.
	They all had basically the same plan on this particular matter.
	But nonetheless, you know, Donald Trump is, you know, he's stating it, but it sounds like, it sounds harsh.
	It does.
	It does sound harsh.
	He continues, and again, he continues along these lines, and he points out that the media are totally out of touch here.
	The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants, or however many there may be.
	And honestly, we've been hearing that number for years.
	It's always 11 million.
	Our government has no idea.
	It could be 3 million, it could be 30 million.
	They have no idea what the number is.
	Frankly, our government has no idea what they're doing on many, many fronts, folks.
	But whatever the number, that's never really been the central issue.
	It will never be a central issue.
	It doesn't matter from that standpoint.
	Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington.
	Only the out-of-touch media elites think the biggest problem facing American side, and you know this, you know this, this is what they talk about, Facing American society today is that there are 11 million illegal immigrants who don't have legal status.
	And they also think the biggest thing, and you know this, is not nuclear, it's not ISIS, it's not Russia, it's not China, it's global warming.
	To all the politicians, donors, and special interests, Hear these words from me and all of you today.
	There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.
	Okay, when you watch this, and when you listen to it, he's saying a lot of things that are true.
	He is.
	The question is, who's his audience?
	So he thinks his audience are the people right in front of him.
	But his audience for this whole day was supposed to be the working mother in the suburbs, the woman who may vote Republican sometimes, votes Democrat sometimes, is concerned about safety, but also feels the need for compassion.
	And he opened up the speech by talking about how he wanted to be compassionate and fair.
	Are you sensing compassion from him?
	Do you get the sense of compassion from him?
	And so this isn't a question of right or wrong.
	I think that he's right on virtually everything he's saying.
	This is a question of tonality.
	And I keep going back to this point because it's important.
	In politics, the question is your audience.
	Who is his audience?
	What is he trying to do?
	And when he's just citing back to his stump speech, which it seems like is what he's doing here, I'm not sure who he's gaining.
	It was a real opportunity.
	He goes to Mexico, has a very sober meeting.
	He could have come forth, done a really sober speech in which he laid out this exact same agenda, the exact same agenda, but done so in a way that wasn't yelly, and wasn't screamy, and wasn't cheery, and wasn't people clapping, and wasn't people yelling, but instead was, I'm just going to lay out for you, here are the hard facts about immigration, and we have to be compassionate, and we have to deal with people in a way that's fair, but we also have to make sure that we're protecting America's interests.
	He could have done all of that.
	But instead, it turns out, just imagistically, it doesn't look like that.
	From any standpoint, it doesn't look like that.
	And so what that does, that opens the door for the left narrative.
	So the left narrative is that Trump did not pivot yesterday.
	Now, Trump was on Laura Ingraham this morning saying, no, no, no, I'm softening, I'm softening.
	So last week we had the softening, then we had the hardening, then we had the softening again.
	And he needs to talk to his urologist at this point.
	He says that in the middle of the speech, he sort of takes both positions.
	So there's one point where he says, we're not going to have any amnesty.
	He says there's not going to be legal status.
	There's not going to be any amnesty.
	Here's what he had to say about that.
	Number one, are you ready?
	Are you ready?
	It's like a rock concert.
	We will build a great wall along the southern border.
	And Mexico will pay for the wall.
	They don't know it yet, but they're gonna pay for the wall.
	Okay, so that's not a flip.
	Okay, the clip that I'm looking for, I think this is probably four or five from the end, guys.
	It's the one where he talks about his message to the world, you can't obtain legal status.
	Do we have that one?
	All right.
	Our message to the world will be this.
	You cannot obtain legal status or become a citizen of the United States by illegally entering our country.
	Can't do it.
	This declaration alone will help stop the crisis of illegal crossings and illegal overstays, very importantly.
	People will know that you can't just smuggle in, hunker down, and wait to be legalized.
	Not going to work that way.
	Those days are over.
	Right.
	Those days are over.
	So that sounds like he's gonna deport everybody, right?
	And then, literally in the next sentence, he says, in several years, things could change.
	Do we have that clip?
	In several years when we have accomplished all of our enforcement and deportation goals and truly ended illegal immigration for good including the construction of a great wall which we will have built in record time and at a reasonable cost which you never hear from the government
	And the establishment of our new lawful immigration system.
	Then, and only then, will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those individuals who remain.
	That discussion can take place only in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, no longer with us, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.
	So he says, so that's the flip.
	That's the flip.
	So you can't hear it again because he's yelling it at you.
	But what he's saying there is in two paragraphs, right, back to back, he says, you can't obtain legal status, you can't become a citizen by illegally entering the country, you can't hunker down and hope that we're eventually going to amnesty you.
	Then in literally the next paragraph, he says, in several years, in several years, then we can have a discussion about the appropriate disposition of people who hunkered down and stayed here.
	And now it doesn't sound like mass deportation, does it?
	Right, so a minute ago it sounded like mass deportation, now it doesn't sound like mass deportation.
	That was near the end of the speech.
	It was the critical point of the speech, but it got overwhelmed by the image of him with this huge cheering throng, 5,000 people, cheering every time he said he was going to build a wall, cheering every time he said there would be no amnesty, cheering every time he ripped illegal immigrants as criminals.
	So what the media did is they took that and they said, that's the story.
	The story is Trump doubling down.
	The story is not the actual policy shift.
	The story is Trump doubling down.
	And so this morning, Politico is reporting that a bunch of Hispanic people on Trump's campaign are now quitting because they didn't see the pivot they wanted to see.
	Now, if you read the speech, the pivot's there.
	If you just read the text, the pivot's present.
	It's vague.
	He wants to split the baby.
	He wants to have it both ways.
	But basically, the media are saying there was no pivot.
	The media are saying there was no pivot, and Trump's people saying there was a pivot.
	And that's why the narrative that this was a big win for Trump on the Trump side I think is not completely correct.
	The narrative on the part of the left that there was no pivot is also not correct.
	Trump's policy on deportation remains just as vague as it ever was after his big immigration speech last night.
	And I think the media is going to glom onto that and then they're just going to ask about deportations nonstop.
	Now if he's smart, what Trump will say is, look, As I've said before, as I said in that speech, we'll talk about deportations of non-criminal illegal aliens, meaning, you know, they're already criminals because they're here illegally, but criminal activity beyond that.
	We'll talk about deportations of those people once we've already secured the border.
	We'll talk about what we do with the people who are here once we've secured the border.
	Okay, I think that that's the answer he has to start giving on a regular basis.
	But the image, just even the attitude of Trump in Mexico versus Trump on the stump last night, you can see the difference, right?
	Trump in Mexico is very soft-spoken.
	Trump in Mexico is very subdued.
	Trump on the stump with 5,000 people, mistake by his campaign, it got his juices flowing and you got the full Trump.
	You got the full, complete Trump.
	So there's a lot of fallout from all of this.
	You know, people who love Trumpianism were very happy about all this.
	Ann Coulter, in her typical moderate language, she said this was the most magnificent speech in the history of Earth.
	She said, wow, this doesn't sound like softening.
	Go Trump.
	Right?
	So she sees it as not softening, so the media latched onto that.
	She says, God bless Trump for refusing to go along with the nonsense number of 11 million illegal—it's at least 30 million, could be 60 million.
	which is not 60 million.
	She says, there's only one core issue in the debate over illegal immigration, the well-being of the American people.
	Our greatest compassion must be for our American citizens and culture cheerleading him on allows the media to play this game where they say there was no pivot.
	Now, and again, this was underscored by the fact that people like Rudy Giuliani were out there stoking up the crowd and wearing hats that say, make Mexico great again also.
	Here's the video of Rudy Giuliani last night doing this.
	I'm going to put this hat on.
	Donald Trump made it clear that obviously he understands and respects and admires tremendously the contributions of Mexican-Americans who have come here legally over the years First generation, second generation, third generation.
	Okay, so he's wearing a hat and says, make Mexico great again also.
	I don't know what the point of that was or who decided on this stagecraft, but it's really kind of dumb.
	Here's the thing.
	So you could see the attitude of Democrats about the Trump move yesterday by the level of panic during the day.
	So the level of panic declined markedly after his speech last night.
	After he went to Mexico, you could feel the panic.
	On Twitter, you could feel the panic in the Hillary campaign.
	Hillary gave a speech yesterday before Trump gave his immigration speech, and you could see that she was starting to panic.
	Here's Hillary saying, leadership is more than a photo op.
	You don't build a coalition by insulting our friends.
	Or acting like a loose cannon.
	You do it by putting in the slow, hard work of building relationships.
	Getting countries working together was my job every day as your Secretary of State.
	It's more than a photo op.
	It takes consistency and reliability.
	Actually, it's just like building personal relationships.
	People have to get to know that they can count on you.
	That you won't say one thing one day and something totally different the next.
	So, let me stop there.
	She says leadership is more than a photo op.
	Well, you know, lady, your leadership led to the death of four Americans in Benghazi, the trashing of Libya, the trashing of Egypt, the trashing of Tunisia, the trashing of Turkey.
	The genocide that's ongoing in Syria, you really don't get to talk about leadership on the foreign sphere.
	And this is why people were panicking, because in the Clinton camp, they're looking, and you hear what she says, we can't have crazy people doing foreign policy.
	Trump goes down to Mexico, and the only bar he had to jump over was, don't be crazy.
	That was legitimately the only bar, right?
	Don't be a crazy person.
	And he wasn't a crazy person, and so the Democrats started to panic because their narrative of Trump is such a nut that you can't trust him, that disappeared.
	Then he did his speech last night, and suddenly they were all happy again.
	Suddenly all of the Democratic frowny faces turned into smiley faces, and people started wondering what was Trump doing, what was his strategy here.
	And you can sort of see relief set in on the Democratic side.
	Trump had the opportunity to make a significant move here.
	He didn't end up making a very significant move because of that speech.
	He still can do it.
	He still can do it.
	But to me, it was a bit of a blown opportunity.
	So this is why, you know, in the two-narrative battle that I mentioned at the beginning, the left's narrative that yesterday was a disaster for Trump and the right's narrative that it was great for Trump, I'm in the middle.
	I think that it was a blown opportunity for Trump, an opportunity that he created through good politicking, and then he proceeded to not fulfill through bad politicking.
	Okay, it's time for some things that I like, and then some things that I hate, and then we got some mailbag today.
	So, things that I like today.
	Let's start with, it's Gene Wilder week, because obviously Gene Wilder passed away this week.
	We've done Blazing Saddles, we did The Frisco Kid, which is one of my personal favorites.
	Probably the best movie that he was ever in was The Producers, the original Producers.
	They made a musical out of this that stinks, but they did do a But, and they made a remake with Nathan Lane that also stinks.
	But the original movie is so funny.
	The original movie is so hilarious.
	And I don't know, do we, we don't have that.
	There's a clip.
	Did we have a clip?
	We do have a clip.
	Okay, so this is, this is one of the more famous Gene Wilder clips from the producer He plays kind of a nebbishy accountant.
	And the plot of the film is that Zero Mostel plays this would-be Broadway producer who discovers that you actually make more money from producing a Broadway flop than you do from producing a Broadway hit.
	And the way you do this is you go out and you raise a bajillion dollars for your opening night.
	You sell 1,000% of the operation.
	And then you have an opening night that is such a disaster.
	It's so bad.
	The reviews are so terrible that you have to pull the thing in one night.
	You have to pull the musical in one night.
	And then you just say to your investors, sorry, all the money's gone.
	We invested it.
	It's gone.
	Can't do anything about it.
	And you just pocket the cash, right?
	That's the plot of the film.
	And he ropes Gene Wilder into this.
	And Gene Wilder is the Nebuchadnezzar accountant.
	And it's really, really funny.
	When you get a hold of yourself, don't touch me!
	Don't touch me!
	I'm hysterical!
	I'm having hysterics!
	I'm hysterical!
	I can't stop when I get like this!
	I can't stop!
	I'm hysterical!
	I'm wet!
	I'm wet!
	I'm hysterical and I'm wet!
	I'm in pain!
	And I'm wet!
	And I'm still hysterical!
	No, no, don't hit, don't hit.
	It doesn't help.
	It only increases my sense of danger.
	What can I do?
	What can I do?
	You're getting me hysterical.
	Go away, go away.
	You frighten me.
	Stay over there.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'm over here.
	This better?
	That's better.
	But you still look angry.
	How's this?
	Good.
	That's good.
	Really, really funny film.
	And of course, this has some of the great Mel Brooks classics, like Springtime for Hitler.
	It's a really, really, really funny movie, which has been blown up by Hollywood, which is what they always do.
	They always take the great things, remake them, and make them stink.
	But the original film is the best, by far.
	And he's charming and funny.
	It's a great film.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So somebody said, I have the world's both greatest and weirdest fans.
	So I had, so yesterday we had a bizarre Japanese anime thing and I have no idea what the Japanese on it said, although I have been informed that there was some stuff in there that was inappropriate.
	So if there was, I didn't know about it, and I still don't know about it because it's in Japanese, and I don't speak Japanese.
	But if it was, I apologize for those who read Japanese.
	If there was anything offensive in there, I have no clue.
	Again, it was in Japanese.
	But somebody sent me this, and this is offensive and terrible, but I think it's hilarious, so I'm gonna put it up.
	So, somebody sent me this graphic of shot glasses with Harambe, the gorilla.
	I'm obsessed with the whole Harambe memeing routine.
	I think it's the funniest thing ever, because I have a really dark sense of humor.
	It says, take a shot for Harambe.
	He took one for you.
	Okay.
	I understand.
	The animal rights people hate me now, but tough.
	It's funny.
	Okay.
	Things I hate.
	So I mentioned very early on the program this double standard that exists in the media, and it is pretty ridiculous, but Things I Hate.
	Let's do it.
	Oh, we already did.
	We're never going to get this right.
	Fine.
	So CNN, here's this routine on CNN.
	They were doing an interview of this guy who had saved a baby who was stuck in a hot car.
	So some terrible mother decided it would be a genius move to leave a four-month-old baby in 80-degree weather in a closed car, which is a good idea if you want to roast the baby and kill the baby.
	So this guy broke the window and saved the baby.
	He was on CNN, and he was wearing a Trump shirt.
	Here's what CNN did with the Trump shirt.
	You're walking through the parking lot, you see the baby.
	Help us understand what went through your mind and why you did what you did.
	As I was walking up, I was parked far back from the car.
	And as I was walking up, I saw this old lady walking out of the store.
	And as we got shoulder-to-shoulder by the back end of this car, she had yelled, oh my God.
	So when I turned around, we heard the baby screaming.
	We were like, oh my God.
	The baby was sweating.
	Her hair was all wet.
	She was covered up with a wool blanket on.
	Didn't happen in this case.
	Thanks to you and Sarah.
	Thank you again.
	We appreciate you taking the time to talk to us.
	Okay, notice something.
	Okay, so this is a good guy, right?
	This is a good guy.
	He broke the window of the car to save this baby.
	The mother, by the way, is going to be prosecuted for child endangerment.
	Look at his shirt.
	You notice something?
	They blurred out the Trump.
	This is on CNN Headline News.
	They blurred out the Trump.
	Was it obscene?
	I don't understand.
	If that was an Obama shirt, you think there's one chance in hell they would have blurred it?
	Or a Hillary shirt, you think they would have blurred it?
	No way.
	And then they claimed it was a mistake.
	This is what they claimed later.
	It was a mistake.
	We have film editors here.
	I mean, we edit the show every day.
	We cut lots of stuff.
	We blur things.
	Have you ever accidentally blurred something?
	Has that ever happened?
	You're just sitting around and boom, something goes blurry?
	It never happens.
	I mean, clearly this is a deliberate move to blur out the shirt because they don't want people to know that this swell fellow is a Trump supporter because you're not allowed to know he's a Trump supporter.
	There are other items of apparel, however, that the media are willing to hide on behalf of the left.
	Here's one of those items of apparel.
	Colin Kaepernick, who is just turning out to be a terrible person.
	This is the bench-riding quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers who says he will sit out the National Anthem on Military Appreciation Day because he's a class act.
	These are the socks that he's now wearing at practice.
	There's a story about this at Daily Wire that's linked to Drudge.
	The picture is, on his socks, it is a picture of pigs wearing cop caps.
	I'm wearing police hats.
	So this guy who says that America's a deeply racist place, a really terrible discriminatory place, he has socks with pictures of the police as pigs on them.
	And he wears them out to practice.
	Apparently he's been wearing these since August 10th.
	Nobody has seen fit to ask him about them.
	The entire media knew.
	He's not been asked one question about them.
	Not one.
	Because he's a civil rights hero, gang.
	And if he's a civil rights hero, we can't ask him why he thinks that all cops are pigs.
	Just disgusting.
	Just disgusting.
	Okay.
	You know, we'll skip the—we'll save the other things that we hate for today.
	We'll go straight to the mailbag so that we can see if we can approximate.
	The appropriate time this show is supposed to run.
	Okay.
	Mailbag.
	Jerry writes, "I want to get your opinion on the two candidates' approaches to national security.
	Trump often talks about how Hillary wants to increase the intake of Syrian refugees by 550%.
	He says, "I understand the refusal to back Trump out of principle, but at what point do we realize the threat of If Trump makes you feel safer, then of course that's a valid argument.
	Okay, Jerry, I think this is a perfectly valid argument.
	If Trump makes you feel safer, then of course that's a valid argument.
	I've said myself, I think Trump might make me feel safer on immigration.
	There are a lot of considerations here in the United States.
	If that's your paramount concern, if your paramount concern is we have to stop the importation of people who are threats to American citizens, then vote Trump.
	Although I will say that, again, you may be sinking the possibility of stopping future immigration Waves if you vote Trump and by doing so you toxify the Republican brand for the next election because my perception is that Trump is going to lose and if you toxify the Republican brand on behalf of Trump, you're not going to be able to defeat Hillary in four years or eight years.
	It's just going to be forever.
	You guys went along with Donald Trump.
	So I'm not sacrificing victory just for the sake of sacrificing victory here by not voting Trump.
	If I don't vote Trump, if I don't vote Trump, Then it's not because I want Hillary to win, or it's because I want Democrats to continue to win, it's because I want Democrats to lose to somebody who's actually going to fix the problem in the near future, as opposed to somebody who's going to pay lip service to fixing the problem.
	So this is a very complex calculation.
	I've never pretended, and I've said it over and over.
	I'm not saying this is an easy decision either way.
	There's a bunch of different things on the table.
	The toxification of the Republican conservative brand, the attempt to turn conservatism into Trumpism, the absolute hatred with which many Americans view Donald Trump, the fact that young people despise Trump.
	I mean, his poll numbers with young people are awful.
	These are things that we have to think about for the future beyond just this election.
	As I've said before, if you think this is the last election, if you think this is the last election, it's the last chance to save the country, vote Trump.
	That's it.
	If you think this is the last chance to save the country, vote Trump.
	If you think that the real saving of the country rests on the election of a real conservative sometime in the near future and the non-wiping-out-of-the-Republican brand, then you might want to think about it twice.
	Well, I mean, to be fair, I don't think that the brand— not all brands of Christianity are equal.
	Russia and China, can you see these countries becoming beacons of classical liberalism and righteousness, thereby usurping North America and the rest of Europe in which collectivism is thriving?
	Well, I mean, to be fair, I don't think that the brand, not all brands of Christianity are equal.
	The sort of Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox brand of religion that's practiced in Russia, from what I know, and that isn't very much, is not the same as, you know, the American brand of religion, just as European Christianity is not the same as American Christianity is There are many different strains of Christianity.
	American Christianity rests also in this kind of rationalistic, largely Protestant upbringing that most of our founding fathers had.
	And that is what shaped the values.
	Not all brands of Christianity are exactly the same.
	Catholicism, obviously, is not the same as Anglicanism, which is not the same as Protestantism.
	And all of these have different political considerations.
	There's a reason why Catholicism is very heavy in South America, but heavily Catholic countries in South America also turn into socialist dictatorships very often.
	And there's a reason for that.
	So, you know, I don't think that China's on the verge of becoming a classical liberal haven.
	I don't think that Russia is either.
	Russell writes, Dear Ben, I'm a second year college student and have been listening to your show for two months.
	I hold great respect for your defense of liberty and envy your eloquent way of speaking.
	I've always held traditional conservative values partially because of my parents, although recently I've become more libertarian.
	Whenever a professor presents a progressive idea and my classmates not, I feel alone.
	My question is, How do I become more solid in the ideas of free market capitalism and individual freedom so that when I'm in that situation, I can rebut in a coherent way?
	I mean, the answer, Russell, is that you just have to read.
	So if you're going to read books on economics, the two kind of basic primers are Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics and Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.
	You read those two, you will know more than all of your classmates combined about the basic workings of free markets and economics and the morality of free markets and economics.
	I'd also look up Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice, which is really terrific.
	Wes writes, Ben, big fan of the show.
	I was wondering if you could explain your position on intervention in Israel.
	I understand you're against the type of nation building the neocons like Bush enacted, but what makes Israel unique?
	Is it the fact that Israel is the only real democracy in the hellhole that is the Middle East?
	I'm against nation building, yet feel the rest of the first world should help Israel defend themselves.
	Okay, so he says I'm the reason that he got off the Trump train.
	It made me reconsider my admiration for Trump.
	For that, I'm forever grateful.
	Again, if you want to vote Trump, that's fine.
	Just be eyes wide open about who these people are.
	As far as nation building, it's not nation building to support democracies that exist.
	It's nation building to suggest that you can take places that have never experienced democracy and magically turn them democratic.
	So you should be more exact when it comes to this terminology, you know, taking Taking Afghanistan and saying we're gonna take this tribal state that's never seen anything remotely approaching Western liberalism and suddenly, boom, we're gonna turn them into, you know, Idaho.
	It ain't gonna happen.
	Alexander writes, hey Ben, why do you think so many companies now use affirmative action?
	Would it not be more profitable to hire employees based only on things like skill, work ethic, accomplishments, education, etc.?
	Do you think there are any benefits to affirmative action?
	Thanks, Alex.
	Alex, if you mean race-based affirmative action, no, I do not think there are benefits to race-based affirmative action.
	I think it is just another way of distinguishing between people's races without looking at their backgrounds.
	There are many reasons why you would pick somebody who has different experiences.
	Many reasons why you would look at somebody's work experience.
	If you have a 4.0 GPA and you came from a really rough background, that may be more impressive than if you have a 4.0 GPA and you came from a really rich background because you presumably had to work harder to overcome obstacles, and that has relevance.
	But if it's just race-based, like there's a black guy and a white guy, and the black guy gets more points, no, I think that's anti-beneficial.
	I think that's stupid.
	Drake writes, over the last few months of the election cycle, since it was revealed Cruz couldn't beat Trump, he stated the Conservative Party needs to look onward toward the next election.
	So my question is finding a proper candidate to represent the party in 2020.
	My question is, do you think it's likely the Conservative Party can come back in four years stronger than now?
	And if so, who, in your opinion, could lead the party to victories?
	And I love you stay objective and lay the information out, and I appreciate it.
	Okay, so Drake, you know, as far as some of the people who I think are solid for 2020, I think Greg Abbott in Texas is somebody who's solid for 2020.
	I think that Ben Sasse in Nebraska is somebody who's solid for 2020.
	There's some other governors who I think would be interesting candidates for 2020.
	I do think the possibility of a real conservative resurgence remains, but this is important.
	I think after this election cycle, if Trump loses, which the polls suggest he will, if Trump loses, there's going to be a big battle, and it's not going to be between the Trumpsters and the conservatives.
	It's going to be the establishment and the conservatives.
	The establishment is going to blame conservatives for Trump and tell the Trump people they were taken for a ride by people like Cruz and bank on the hatred of Trump people for Cruz to form a de facto alliance with the Trump people and then put conservatism in the backseat.
	That's what I foresee happening.
	The Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells and the Ryan supremacists of the world who have already reached out to Trump in a way that a lot of conservatives haven't.
	People are forgetting the never-Trump people.
	We're all basically Ted Cruz conservatives.
	I mean, it's people who are hardcore conservatives, not people who are wishy-washy.
	There are a few wishy-washy never-Trumpers, but most of the people who are anti-Trump are also people who are very, very hardcore conservatives.
	The establishment has formed common force with Trump.
	They're going to try and maintain that equilibrium after the election and say to the Trump people, look, you got your shot.
	Now it's our shot.
	We need We need Jebrew McBush part three.
	We need Bob Bush.
	We need some iteration of the Bush family.
	Michael writes, "What is a fair balance between libertarianism and conservatism?
	As a young millennial, I feel a pull between both of them and cannot decide what would be the best balance." So, my view of libertarianism, there are multiple types of libertarianism.
	There's strong defense libertarianism, which is sort of Larry Elder libertarianism.
	Then there's weak defense libertarianism, like Ron Paul.
	There are people who are libertarian on social policy, like Gary Johnson is pro-choice, pro-abortion.
	There are people who are libertarian but pro-life, like Rand Paul.
	So there's lots of strains even within libertarianism.
	But my view on libertarianism is that I'm pretty much libertarian when it comes to government policy.
	You should be able to do whatever you want, so long as you're not hurting anybody else, is a pretty good rule for government now.
	The reason I'm a conservative and not a full libertarian is because libertarians, many of them, go further, and they say that even in the social sphere, there shouldn't be institutions that push social standards.
	They say the local communities shouldn't be able to have stigmas.
	Local churches shouldn't be able to throw people out.
	Local organizations shouldn't be able to organize on the basis of the morality of their choosing.
	That I disagree with.
	I think strong societal institutions outside of government are the greatest guarantor of liberty from government.
	This is what de Tocqueville said.
	If you're a member of a church, and everybody in your community is a member of a church, much better shot that you're not going to go to the government to enforce morality, since you already have a quasi morality that's socially enforced.
	Taylor writes, with all the controversy skyrocketing on the left about how America is not the greatest country, could you please give your opinion on this topic?
	What are the five things you appreciate and respect most about the United States?
	Okay, economic freedom and property rights, the belief in God-given rights that are protected from government as well as by government, the idea of checks and balances because human beings can't be trusted, the notion that equality extends to people of all races and all sexes, and that that equality is an equality of rights and opportunity but not an equality of outcome.
	And finally, the basis of all of this, which is freedom of religion, the idea that I can worship as I see fit.
	Those are five big ones.
	And a sixth, which is sort of an adjunct to all five of those, is the idea that we have a right to protect ourselves from encroachment by the government, which is, of course, what the Founders did when they rebelled against the British, and that requires a Second Amendment.
	Josh writes, do you think there should be any legal guidelines for treatment of animals?
	What is your stance on the practices of Tyson and other large food processors in regard to animal treatment?
	Yeah, Josh, I'm kind of torn on this.
	So, I'm not an animal rights activist in the sense I don't think animals are the same as humans, and I think people for the ethical treatment of animals does grave disservice to animal rights by suggesting things like there's a chicken holocaust.
	That's just, that's stupid.
	That's stupid.
	As far as ethical treatment of animals, yes, I think that there should be regulations with regard to the treatment of animals.
	I think some of these are overbroad.
	I think the idea that all chickens have to be free-range is kind of silly.
	I have to admit, I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I'd like to research it a little bit more and think about it a little bit more before giving a hard and fast answer, because obviously every time you create regulations like this, you increase the price of food.
	Which doesn't hurt rich people, you know, people who earn a lot of money like me, but it does hurt people at the bottom of the economic chain who are looking for, you know, a cheap chicken breast they can feed their kid.
	And so if there are all sorts of regulations, like in California about free-range eggs and all this stuff, and you double the price of eggs, that does have a human cost.
	Okay, Adam writes, and we're gonna do maybe like one or two more of these.
	Hey Ben, my wife and I are expecting our first kid next month.
	We're part of the same crappy millennial generation as you.
	Because our generation sucks so bad, we're considering private school or homeschool.
	Thoughts?
	Will public education continue to get worse regardless of who is in office?
	No, I'm not sure public education will continue to get worse regardless of who is in office.
	I think that if you break teachers' unions, allow school vouchers, and create competition in the public school system, That can increase the quality of education.
	You have to impose some of the same sorts of standards that Michelle Rhee tried to impose in Washington, D.C., and then was thrown out for doing so, including the idea of giving raises to quality teachers and getting rid of tenure rules.
	I think that it depends on your community.
	Where I live, I went to the Burbank Unified School District for elementary school.
	Great school.
	I went to Edison Elementary.
	Terrific school.
	I then went to Walter Reed, which is in North Hollywood.
	Very different school district.
	This one was part of LAUSD, and I wasn't in the mainstream.
	I was in the IHP program, the highly gifted program.
	The teachers were good, but the other students looked like they wanted to murder you every time you went out on the playground.
	I mean, it was like Mad Max out there.
	So it really does depend on the school district and your local community.
	Stay awesome, my friend.
	writes Ben, I thought Will Ferrell had the most convincing doppelganger in Chad Smith until I saw a picture of Bill Hader.
	He should play you in your big screen biography.
	Stay awesome, my friend.
	I am deeply insulted by that.
	And I've never, I've never, honestly, the one who I get a lot is Jeff Gordon.
	I get Jeff Gordon, you know, the NASCAR driver?
	That one I've seen a lot.
	I've even gotten a Daniel Radcliffe, which I don't see at all.
	Bill Hader, I'm going to look up a picture of Bill Hader now because I don't know whether, if Bill Hader is who I think he is, then yeah, he's got bug eyes.
	I, I, We'll take an online poll on who should play me in the film.
	I've always said Shaquille O'Neal should play me in the film, but that may be bad casting.
	Final one.
	Michael writes, hi Ben, recently the DOJ has said it will no longer use private prisons.
	Many people are excited by this decision, saying this is the end of business profiting off the incarceration of people.
	The assumption seems to be private prisons are somehow driving up the number of people being incarcerated just to make money.
	What's your opinion on the use of private prisons?
	My opinion on the use of private prisons is that the government is terrible at everything, and if you have a competitive bid that is overseen with regulation, and you have people who are monitoring the private prison, private prisons can actually be sued into the ground by both the government and the inmates, whereas the public system, only you get sued.
	So the public school system is bad because of this.
	The public jail system is bad because of this.
	I don't know what improves when you hand everything over to the state, as opposed to handing it over to private companies, who you then hold accountable.
	Okay, we've reached the end of the week.
	And that means, of course, that we're about to end, as Andrew Klavan likes to call it, enter the Klavan-less weekend, in which things get ruined and people die.
	Try to control yourselves, gang.
	We won't have a show on Monday, because it's Labor Day, thanks to, and we'll just preempt this right now.
	Thanks to the unions for Labor Day.
	Also, thanks for our skyrocketing debt and the destruction of our national sovereignty.
	So, really appreciate that.
	That's been awesome.
	So, glad for Monday off.
	Not so glad about the $19 trillion debt, as well as massive state debts across the board.
	Those kind of suck.
	But, and you're not responsible for all $19 trillion in debt, but you are responsible for California's debt.
	California's dead.
	In any case, thanks for Labor Day Off.
	We will see you Tuesday, and then we'll have an exceedingly short week.
	And short week just means we cram in more information, as you know, because time has no meaning here.
	We just move fast.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲