We’re Never Ever Ever…Getting Back Together | Ep. 634
|
Time
Text
Nikki Haley quits, the UN makes a catastrophic prediction regarding global warming, and President Trump goes after Taylor Swift, much to my producer's great dismay.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, after the laughter and revelry of all the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, it turns out that today is indeed a sad day because two icons, two icons were lost to us.
Nikki Haley, for me, you know, and Ambassador Nikki Haley, for me, she resigned today.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
And Taylor Swift came in for some harsh critiques from President Trump, much to my producer Senya's dismay.
So we'll get to all of that as well.
But first, let's talk about that thing that you are wearing on your wrist.
Is it nice, that watch?
I don't think so.
Is it as nice as this watch?
No.
It is not as nice as this watch.
How do I know?
Because you don't have a movement watch, do you?
DO YOU?
Well, you certainly should.
Movement has come pretty far from being crowdfunded kids working out of a living room.
In the past year, they've not only introduced a ton of new watch collections for men and women, they've also expanded sunglasses and fashion-forward bracelets for her.
I have a movement watch.
My wife has a movement watch.
I actually have two of them.
My parents both have movement watches.
They make a great gift.
They are really nice looking watches for not a particularly luxurious price.
Movement watches are all about looking good and keeping it simple.
They don't tell you how many steps you're taking or how many calories you burn.
All they do is tell you the time, which is what a watch is supposed to do.
Movement watches start at just $95 at a department store.
You're looking at 400 to 500 bucks.
Movement figured out that by selling online they could cut out the middleman and save on cost, and you reap the benefit.
Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
She decided that she was going to resign apparently a few days ago and that was just announced today.
All I can say is I'm stuck in a glass cage of emotion.
A glass cage of emotion.
I'm so sad right now.
The sadness overwhelms me at times.
If I have to take a break to go cry in the corner and just rock myself and eat ice cream, that might be happening a little bit later in the show.
We'll try to avoid it as best we can.
Nikki Haley made that announcement in the White House with President Trump today.
It was a shock announcement.
Here's what she had to say.
It has been an honor of a lifetime.
You know, I said I am such a lucky girl to have been able to lead the state that raised me and to serve a country I love so very much.
It has really been a blessing and I want to thank you for that.
Now Nikki Haley was indeed a badass in her job as the UN ambassador.
She basically spent every day going and yelling at despots, which was, and she was great at it.
I mean, she would go in and she would talk about how the United States was exceptional and America was a unique place and our allies like Israel were worth supporting and how the UN was basically the most isley of the international institutional Sort of layout.
And she was exactly correct about all of those things.
I will miss Nikki Haley greatly.
She explained some of the things that she got done as UN ambassador.
I'm most excited.
Look at the two years.
Look at what has happened in two years with the United States on foreign policy.
Now, the United States is respected.
Countries may not like what we do, but they respect what we do.
They know that if we say we're going to do something, we follow it through, and the President proved that.
Whether it was with the chemical weapons in Syria, whether it's with NATO saying that other countries have to pay their share, I mean, whether it's the trade deals, which have been amazing, they get that the President means business.
Okay, so there are a bunch of rumors about what's going to happen next.
People suggesting that Nikki Haley is going to take Senator Lindsey Graham's spot.
Lindsey Graham is going to become the U.N.
ambassador.
That's not going to happen.
I'm just going to say that right here, right now.
Lindsey Graham has no interest in giving up a Senate seat to go be U.N.
ambassador.
It would be a great solution.
It would be really Machiavellian to move her into the Senate where she could just do battle with Kamala Harris on a daily basis.
It would be spectacular.
I would enjoy watching it.
And Lindsey Graham would actually make a terrific U.N.
ambassador because it would be full-time Lindsey Graham 2.0.
That's all that he would do all day long would be Lindsey Graham 2.0 and just yell at people, which would be amazing.
But unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen.
There's some rumors that maybe it'll be Dina Powell, who was a former member of the administration, or maybe it'll be Rick Grenell, who would be terrific.
He's our current ambassador to Germany.
I really doubt that they're going to call him back from Germany to make him UN ambassador.
There are a few other possibilities.
Nikki Haley is not going to stay with the administration.
She is out.
She is not going back to the Senate.
My guess is that she is going to go back into politics maybe a couple of years from now.
But I get the sense from her, from folks who know her, that she actually does just want to take some time out.
That she's sort of been burned out on this job.
And I hear her.
I mean, that's a pretty brutal job.
I met with Ambassador Haley just a few months back.
And it's not the easiest job in the world going in there every day.
Number one, having to watch what the administration is saying and doing.
And number two, having to go in with some of the worst people on earth and try to negotiate with them on a regular basis.
So good for Nikki Haley.
And she certainly has all sorts of gratitude from folks like me for everything that she did.
I'm very sad indeed to see her go.
Meanwhile, The United Nations put out a report, and this is getting all sorts of press on the left, and so I think it's worth going through in detail.
So the UN is not a good institution.
It is an institution that is replete with the interests of a lot of very, very bad nations who have interests that are not quite American interests.
But one area where the UN actually has done some research, one area where science is supposed to take the leading role, Is with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
There's a big report out today.
It came out on Monday, actually.
And it is a report all about the supposed higher risk from climate change, even with a lower level of climate change.
So we were told for many years that over the course of the next century, we were going to get to 3 to 4 degrees Celsius climate change across the planet.
That was going to be the average climate change.
And then it turns out that this new report basically says that we are warming less fast than the UN thought we were.
So the UN keeps giving these 10-year windows, saying in 10 years, we're really going to have blown it.
In five years, we're going to have blown it.
In three years, we're going to have blown it.
Well, now the new report, this should be the headline today.
It's not the headline.
The new report basically suggests sort of the opposite, that this is in chapter two of this new report.
The key quote says, quote, There is high agreement across various lines of evidence assessed in the report that the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees Celsius or 2 degrees Celsius would be larger than the estimates at the time of the AR5.
The AR5 is the last big study they did.
That was back in, I believe, 2013, 2014.
What that means, in non-science speak, is that it turns out that our carbon emissions have been lower than they thought they were when they first made their estimate, which means that the climate is warming at slightly a lower rate than they thought it would be at this point.
So the estimated date for hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming?
It's actually, it's been pushed out further now.
They were saying that we were going to hit that in three, four years.
Now they're saying we're going to hit that in ten years.
They keep pushing that down the line.
The reason that this creates some skepticism among folks is not because people don't necessarily believe in climate change at all, as though the climate is not changing.
It does raise questions as to the sensitivity of the climate to human-produced carbon emissions, human-produced greenhouse gases.
Skepticism, I think, is warranted with regard to some of the more outrageous claims that are being made by UN members and radical leftists, who do indeed, many of them, have an alternative agenda.
And I'm not just saying they have an alternative agenda, they're basically saying so.
There's a guy named Eric Holthaus, who is a meteorologist and a visiting scholar at UMN-ION.
I'm not sure, the University of Minnesota, I suppose?
And he actually calls for an end to capitalism in order to fight climate change.
Now, there are a lot of folks on the right Who have been suggesting for a long time that was actually the agenda here.
That all of the worry, the extreme worry about climate change, was really designed to hamper America's economy and the world.
And the evidence for this was actually present, right?
There was evidence that, for example, the Paris Accords, which were demands on the United States that we were supposed to radically shift how we did business, while other countries made empty promises about how they did business.
China suggested, for example, that they were committed to reducing greenhouse gases after peaking in 2030.
Well, American studies already showed that China was planning on peaking its greenhouse gases in 2030, so they promised to do something they're already going to do.
India promised that they were going to gradually lower greenhouse gas emissions at some point in the future.
So that promise didn't mean anything.
And so a lot of folks in the United States were saying, well, why are we committing ourselves to attempts and targets when the world's greatest emitters and polluters are not actually tying themselves to anything of substance here?
Well, Eric Holthaus, he says this, if you're wondering what you can do about climate change, the world's top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systemically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.
I mean, if you're looking for something to do.
So the idea is that we have to get rid of capitalism completely.
Where is he getting this from in the report?
Well, there's a section in Chapter 4 of this UN report that says, Increasing evidence suggests that a climate-sensitive realignment of savings and expenditure toward low-emission, climate-resilient infrastructure and services requires an evolution of global and national financial systems.
Estimates suggest that in addition to climate-friendly allocation of public investments, that'd be like building levees and ensuring that there's infrastructure, a potential redirection of 5% to 10% of annual capital revenues is necessary.
So basically the entire profit margin should be redirected as the UN suggests that it should be redirected.
Now, there are several problems with this report.
The first problem is the way that it's actually reported by the mainstream media.
So the way that the New York Times reports this is that it's a landmark report from the UN Scientific Panel on Climate Change, painting a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought.
Except that's not really true.
Not much changed between the 2013 report and this particular report, the AR5 in this report.
Not much changed at all.
In fact, the only thing that really changed is that they said that their forecast for doom has actually been pushed out a few more years.
But the way the New York Times covers this is that everyone is going to die at 1.5 degrees Celsius change by 2040 as opposed to 2 degrees Celsius change by 2040.
The report issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that it describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040, a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.
When the New York Times says that, what they want you to picture is the day after tomorrow, that movie with Dennis Quaid, where suddenly a giant tsunami just washes through New York City and sets the whole place under ice for a thousand years.
And global warming is responsible for the rise in the sea levels, and everyone dies, and it's catastrophic, it's deep impacts, except with climate.
The problem is that that's not really true.
All of this climate change is going to happen over the course of the next century.
Human beings are pretty good and adaptable.
When it comes to adapting over time to threats that present themselves over time.
Climate has been changing across the world for the last century and a half, really since 1880, 1870.
And human beings have been migrating and moving and developing new technologies to deal with all of that.
And the same will hold true in the future as well.
Now I'm going to talk a little bit more about the UN report in just a second.
But first, let's talk about how you can save some money on your postage.
Okay, so every time you go to the post office, it costs you money to actually get in the car and drive to the post office.
It costs you time because you have to get in the car and go to the post office.
No more.
Now you can get all the great services of the post office from stamps.com.
You can access all of their amazing services right from your desk 24-7 when it is convenient for you.
Buy and print official U.S.
postage for any letter, any package using your own computer and printer.
The mail carrier picks it up.
Just click, print, mail.
You're done.
Could not be easier.
We use stamps.com at the Daily Wire offices, save ourselves time, save ourselves money.
And again, we use it because it is so super efficient.
And right now there's a special offer.
When you use promo code Shapiro, you get up to 55 bucks of free postage, plus a digital scale and a four week trial.
Again, that's stamps.com.
Before you do anything else, there's a radio microphone at the top of the page.
Type in Shapiro and you save all of that money.
55 bucks free postage, digital scale, four week trial.
Go to stamps.com, promo code Shapiro.
Again, all those great services of the post office without actually having to travel down to the post office.
Pretty spectacular deal when you use promo code Shapiro.
Stamps.com, enter promo code Shapiro.
So according to Bill Hare, who's author of previous IPCC reports and a physicist with Climate Analytics, a non-profit organization, they're a left-leaning one, we were not aware of this just a few years ago.
It's quite a shock and quite concerning.
So this is the first report commissioned by world leaders under the Paris Agreement, which again is that 2015 pact that people supposedly signed but really made no real commitment to keep.
And Trump said this is a waste of time and pulled us There are significant problems, I should mention, in climate change modeling.
emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty.
There are significant problems, I should mention, in climate change modeling.
None of the models that have been put forth so far actually reflect the level of climate change that's been occurring.
Virtually all of them overshoot the mark.
And that's because climate is actually very difficult to predict.
There are a lot of factors that are involved in climate.
Now, how much of climate change is caused by human activity?
Certainly some.
The IPCC says 80%.
Folks like Roy Spencer, who I'm sure you've heard on other talk radio shows.
You've heard him on Rush Limbaugh.
Roy Spencer.
He says that he thinks it's about 50%, but certainly our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions leads to climate change.
The question is really not whether that's happening, it's to what extent, and also what the economic damage is from such climate change, what the human damage is from such climate change.
So the New York Times is playing this up as much as humanly possible.
Avoiding the most serious damages requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, say the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of $54 trillion.
But while they conclude that it is technically possible to achieve the rapid changes required to avoid 2.7 degrees of warming, they conclude it may be politically unlikely.
For example, the report says that heavy taxes or prices on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps as high as $27,000 per ton by 2100 would be required.
That's a $40 per gallon tax on carbon.
That's what you're talking about.
Every time you go to the pump and you buy 10 gallons of gas, you'd now be paying $400 in tax in order to meet that $27,000 per ton number.
The Obama administration had suggested $50 per ton, and that was considered high at the time.
All of this is to say that these estimates are wildly overstated in terms of the amount of damage that they are likely to do.
The reason that I say that is because of the report itself.
The way that these things get reported in the media is that there is virtual certainty in the scientific community that this stuff is going to happen.
The problem is that virtual scientific consensus doesn't actually exist on a lot of key issues.
So, for example, as I pointed out this morning, There are significant questions in the report about the level of confidence in specific predictions.
So in just a second, I'm going to talk about those specific predictions.
So here's what you need to know about the IPCC.
So the IPCC makes two types of predictions in this report.
The first type of prediction is that two degrees of global warming will be worse than 1.5 degrees of global warming Celsius.
Okay.
And they say that with high confidence.
Meaning, by their metric, 8 in 10 confidence.
80% confidence.
Okay, well, that sounds fair, right?
I mean, seems like more global warming would be worse than less global warming.
That seems like the assumption that we're going on.
Then they get to the actual specific predictions.
And with those, virtually every specific prediction they make about the amount of damage that's going to be done to the world climate based on 1.5 degrees Celsius of change, Virtually all of their predictions are couched in terms of medium confidence.
Medium confidence according to the IPCC, at least according to a 2007 report where they defined the terms.
It's the only place I could see them defining the terms.
Medium confidence means a 50-50 shot.
So, basically flip a coin as to whether they are right or wrong on this.
And then you are going to determine whether we ought to destroy capitalism on the basis of this.
So, for example, In the first chapter, well in the summary rather, in the summary of findings for the IPCC report, it says of the 105,000 species studied, 6% of insects, 8% of plants, 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half their climatically determined geographic range for global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with 18% of insects, 16% of plants, and 8% of vertebrates for global warming of 2 degrees Celsius.
So basically, everything is going to double.
Everything is going to double.
And for insects, it's going to triple.
Everything bad is going to double.
And then for insects, triple with 2 degrees Celsius of change versus 1.5 degrees Celsius of change.
But that is expressed in medium confidence.
OK, so there's a 50-50 shot there, right?
Are you willing to bet the future of the world economy and leave billions of people in poverty in developing nations on a 50-50 bet that they are right about the spread of insect-restricted areas?
I mean, really, is that a bet that you're willing to make?
Because now you're taking a virtual certainty that hundreds of millions of people will live in poverty, in increased conditions of poverty, and you're betting that against the 50-50 possibility that some bugs will have less space to live.
Or that 16% of plants will lose half their climatically determined geographic range.
Now, that's a serious consideration, but I think that there's also the possibility that, number one, the scientists are wrong, and number two, there's the possibility that technology tends to Actually manifest itself in different ways that when you see serious economic, serious environmental problems, technology is a good way of mitigating against that.
In fact, there's a good case we made the global warming because it's a greenhouse effect has acted kind of like a greenhouse.
What you've seen is an increased greening in certain parts of the globe, specifically because of global warming.
And that's sort of a repeated thing in this IPCC report.
The more specific they get, the lower their confidence level.
So, for example, they say, approximately 4% of the global terrestrial land area is projected to undergo a transformation of ecosystems from one type to another at 1 degree Celsius of global warming.
Compared to 13% at 2°C of global warming.
So, if it's 2°C global warming, 13% of the entire global terrestrial land area is going to be transformed in terms of ecosystem.
But again, they say that with medium confidence.
So, what they say with full confidence is that 2°C is worse than 1.5°C.
What they say with medium confidence, meaning half-half, is that this change will be really, really dramatic.
That's basically the case that they are making.
Now, when I say all of this, folks on the left immediately say, well, you're a climate change denier.
Again, I'm not denying climate change is taking place.
I'm asking what the actual impact of climate change will be, and two, what measures will be necessary in order to curb said climate change.
So, I want to take another story that's in the news today because it's sort of astonishing.
It's sort of astonishing.
Yesterday, a guy won the Nobel Prize in Economics.
His name is William Nordhaus.
He works over at Yale.
And the left championed this guy, William Nordhaus.
Why?
Because William Nordhaus has, for years, been modeling what sort of economic systems would be best in terms of curbing global warming.
And this has been his actual life work.
So the left said, oh, look at that.
That's a slap against Trump.
It's a slap against the right.
Finally, we're rewarding someone in economics who takes global warming seriously.
But there is a serious problem with this particular take on William Nordhaus and Romer, the guy who he won a Nobel Prize in economics with.
It turns out that their arguments actually undercut some of the arguments being made by the same folks who are promoting them and promoting this IPCC report.
I'll explain in just a second.
First, Let's talk about improving the quality of your business.
You want to get better employees, you want to get rid of the bad ones, and you want to replace them with good ones?
I know you do, Colton.
I'm looking at you, nodding right there.
Well, if you do, don't be so sure, Colton.
If you do, check out ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is the best site for job finding, okay?
Unlike other job sites, ZipRecruiter does not wait for candidates to find you.
Instead, ZipRecruiter finds them for you.
They have powerful matching technology, scanning thousands of resumes, identifying people with the right skills, education, experience for your job, And actively inviting them to apply.
So you get qualified candidates fast.
You don't have to sort through wrong resumes.
You don't have to wait for the right candidates to apply.
It's no wonder that ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the United States.
That rating comes from hiring sites on Trustpilot with over a thousand reviews.
And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
Go check it out for free.
ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That's ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
That's why we use it at The Daily Wire offices ourselves.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire and try it out for free.
Okay, so as I say, a lot of folks on the left very excited about William Nordhaus actually winning a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on the economics of climate change.
There's only one problem with this.
Nordhaus actually argues that we should only intervene economically.
We should only shift our economy when the costs of not intervening outweigh the costs of intervening, which makes a lot of sense, right?
So if you're not going to intervene, and the costs of climate change are really high, then you should intervene, right?
This is how you make all your decisions in life.
You make every decision in life.
The cost of me acting, is it better or worse than the cost of me not acting?
So, what Nordhaus basically says is we have to determine whether the cost of action is more expensive than the cost of inaction.
What point does that become a reality?
At what point do we actually have to act?
Well, according to Mr. Nordhaus, The actual number is the optimal temperature increase where we have to act is when there is a climate change of 4.1 degrees, which is about 2.3 degrees Celsius.
Okay, so higher than anything the IPCC is talking about.
In fact, his model is called Dice, and there is a 2013 model version that he posted in an Excel table.
The key data here is that he estimated a cost in the year 2100 of 4% of global GDP, which is the equivalent of reducing annual growth over the century from about 2.27% to 2.22%, or postponing the prosperity of 2100 until 2103.
2.22% or postponing the prosperity of 2100 until 2103.
So if the worst case scenarios hit, he is talking about a cost in the year 2100 of 4% of GDP, which is not all that high.
We can cope with it.
It's something that we can deal with.
In August, he actually published an updated discussion of this model.
I talked to Oren Kast this morning, who's an expert on this stuff over at Manhattan Institute, does wonderful work.
Like me, I think he's what you would call Luke Warmer, meaning that he believes that global warming is happening, but he's skeptical of a lot of the answers that are being given for how to curb it.
According to Orrin, Nordhaus published a discussion of his latest model in the American Economic Journal in which he argued that holding warming below 2.5 degrees Celsius is implausible and not cost effective.
In other words, we've already hit 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We've probably already hit 2 degrees Celsius.
There's nothing we can do there.
He says the optimal trajectory would be mitigation that reduces warming from 4.2 degrees Celsius to 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2100.
Here's what he says.
He says the international target for climate change with a limit of 2 degrees Celsius appears to be infeasible with reasonably accessible technologies even with very ambitious abatement strategies.
So in other words, the person that the left is now celebrating for winning the Nobel Prize in economics because it's a slap at Trump doesn't agree with them and doesn't agree with the IPCC on the sort of action that is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.
So that's pretty... It's a pretty important thing to know, you would think, but the media is not covering any of that stuff.
Instead, they're just going with the fully alarmist idea that we are on the brink of disaster and we're all going to die.
The IPCC report, by the way, makes a bunch of political statements.
Many of them are uncalled for, including they go after nuclear energy.
So if you actually did want to curb carbon emissions, if you actually did want to prevent global warming by curbing greenhouse gases, presumably you'd be in favor of nuclear power.
But, the IPCC authors, because they are politically of the left, oppose nuclear energy.
Here's what they say.
They say nuclear energy can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects, e.g. for water use, and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.
And that's just not true.
Studies show that the nuclear energy industry is the safest industry in making electricity.
Climate scientists found that nuclear energy has saved 1.8 million lives by preventing premature deaths from air pollution.
This is according to Forbes.com.
Where nuclear was 19% of U.S.
electricity last year, solar and wind still constitute just 1.3 and 6.3% of electricity.
But the IPCC is saying, forget nuclear, forget coal, forget gas.
Instead, we need to bank on solar and wind.
Yeah, good luck with all of that.
Good luck with all of that.
All of this seems, frankly, like an attempt to avoid the reality, which is that we have to make economic decisions based on possibilities and probabilities, that you don't get to destroy capitalism wholesale just because you don't like capitalism.
And when you hear people saying wild things about how the cities are going to be underwater and millions of people are going to die and all the rest, Just remember that there is an agenda backing some of these folks.
And that the alarmist predictions of folks like Al Gore have not, in fact, come true.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't take global warming seriously.
We should.
But that's why we should use money for abatement.
That's why we should be looking at building levees.
It's why we should be looking at creating barriers to tsunamis and figuring out exactly how to move people inland.
It means that there are lots of ways over the course of the coming century for us to deal with some of the increased problems of climate.
But exaggerating the problems of climate ain't gonna do it.
And then suggesting that we overthrow capitalism to do it is not exactly a smart solution.
Nonetheless, radicalism rules the day.
And it's driven by a sort of weird millenarianism.
This idea that we are immunitizing the eschaton, that we are about to experience the end of time.
And this existed in a lot of religious communities.
The early Christian community thought that sort of the kingdom of God was at hand.
It's happened in the Jewish community too.
You see it among certain Muslim sects.
Well, you see it in the secular world too.
The idea that we are living in the end times, and the apocalypse is basically upon us, and that means that harsh action is necessary.
We need harsh action now.
We need crazed action now, because if we don't, everyone is gonna die.
Millions will die.
Millions will die.
And we keep hearing this about the increase of hurricanes and tornadoes, even though there's been no actual increase in the number of hurricanes or tornadoes.
We keep hearing this about the supposed outsized impact of hurricanes and tornadoes, even though, for example, in Bangladesh, which just experienced a pretty significant hurricane a couple of... within the last year, about 4,000 people died.
In the 1990s, there was a similar-sized hurricane.
100,000 people died.
What did that mean?
It meant that Bangladesh actually spent the money and provided the resources necessary so that fewer people died.
In other words, human beings, as intelligent animals, have the capacity to adapt to our environment.
We've been doing it our entire existence.
Nonetheless, the feeling that we are living in crisis mode has permeated the left to a really extraordinary extent.
And that reaches all the way down to the lowest level of the Democratic Party.
I mean the lowest level, meaning the folks in Antifa.
So, if you haven't seen this, I have to show you this tape from Antifa in Portland.
Antifa has basically taken over the city.
For folks who don't know what Antifa is, Antifa is a wild leftist group.
They call themselves anti-fascist.
What they actually want to do is prevent anyone from saying anything they disagree with.
They just want to prevent anyone from talking.
They wear black.
They beat people up who they disagree with.
They took over an actual intersection in Portland and the authorities did nothing about it because, of course, this is Portland.
Just go that way because I told you to.
Really?
Mm-hmm.
Don't hurt him!
Yeah, brother!
Yeah, you little white little f***er!
Really?
Yeah!
You're a f***ing little whitey, aren't ya?
First Amendment!
Get the f*** down the road!
Please just keep going the direction... Just please turn right for Christ's sake!
Please go the direction I asked you to go!
For Jesus Christ's sake, just turn right!
Please!
You're blocking traffic and they're getting pissed at you!
Oh, we're blocking traffic!
You can turn...
Okay, so obviously Antifa has taken over the city and they're telling people where to go.
Where the hell are the cops?
Well, the answer is the cops are nowhere to be found because for months, for months, Portland has been controlled by Antifa.
There's an article from August 2018 by Andy, I believe it's pronounced Nigo, or maybe the N is silent.
He's an editor at Quillette and he has a piece called Anarchy Breaks Out in Portland with the Mayor's Blessing.
Here's what he says.
Along the trolley tracks behind the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office, a biohazard cleanup crew works under police protection.
It finds used needles and buckets of human waste simmering in nearly 100-degree heat.
The smell of urine and feces fills the block.
For more than five weeks, as many as 200 people had occupied the site to demand ICE's immediate abolition.
They're gone now, but the community is left reeling.
38 days of government-sanctioned anarchy will do that.
A mob surrounded ICE's office in southwest Portland, June 19th.
They barricaded the exit.
They blocked the driveway.
They sent guards to patrol the doors.
They trapped workers inside.
At night, they laid on the street, stopped traffic at a critical junction near a hospital, and police stayed away.
At this time, I am denying your request for additional resources, said Portland Police Bureau Deputy Chief Robert Day.
Writing to federal officers pleading for help.
Hours later, the remaining ICE workers were finally evacuated by a small federal police team.
The facility shut down for more than a week.
Some locals just let Antifa run roughshod.
And that's not really a surprise.
The radicals have taken over large swaths of left.
Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, is now essentially admitting that there are no moderates left in his own party.
When we see that there are no guardrails in Washington, I mean, we know that for sure.
There are no moderate Democrats basically left, moderate Republicans left in the United States.
There are no moderate Republicans left in the United States Senate.
Freudian slip there from Tom Perez.
There are no moderate Democrats because there really are not.
I mean, the number of moderate Democrats has declined.
How much so?
So much so that Our own producer, Senya, is experiencing great tragedy today.
I'll explain why this has an impact on Senya in just a second.
But first, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights.
So you're a gun lover.
That means the clock is ticking for you.
How would you like to hit the range tomorrow with a brand new gun?
I know I'd love that.
And the USCCA wants to make that dream come true.
They're here to help train and protect responsible gun owners like you and me.
Right now, they're giving away free guns every day, so you gotta check them out.
They're giving away a different gun every single day, but it all ends soon.
Just text SAFE to the number 87222.
That's 87222.
Get entered right now.
You could get up to 24 chances to win your gun daily.
It could be 24 Kimbers, 24 Glocks, 24 new SIGs.
All you have to do is text SAFE.
That's S-A-F-E.
Just go check it out right now.
The USCCA has a lot of great services ranging from legal services to educational services.
But this all ends soon.
And today's gun disappears at midnight.
So you don't want to miss it.
Don't put it off.
Go check it out right now.
Text SAFE to 87222.
Get your free entry to win right now.
That's SAFE to 87222.
SAFE to 87222.
Just go check it out right now.
The USCCA has a lot of great services, ranging from legal services to educational services.
They want to make sure that law-abiding gun owners have all the resources they need to fulfill their responsibilities under the Second Amendment and fulfill their rights under the Go check it out right now by texting SAFE to 87222.
OK, I want to get to the saddest story of the day, even sadder than Nikki Haley for Senya in just one second.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you get the rest of this show live.
You also get the rest of Michael Knowles' show live, the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live as well.
Also, when you subscribe right now, You get access early to the audio and video versions of Another Kingdom.
Season 2 is coming out, I believe, on Friday, right?
So Season 2 is beginning on Friday with new episodes, and that includes a really cool visual component you won't get to see unless you are actually a member.
So go check it out for $99 a year.
You can get all of those things, plus the greatest in all beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears hot or cold tumbler, so valuable that I once again forgot it in my hotel room.
As I am on the road.
I left it there for protection.
It's the only thing in the safe.
So go check that out right now.
And you can have one even when I do not.
Also, please leave us a review at iTunes.
It really does help the rankings over at iTunes.
So we encourage you to leave a five star review.
If you don't like the show, don't leave a review.
Instead, I think you have better things to do with your time, frankly.
So go check us out right now.
Right now, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
The saddest story of the day.
There are no more moderates in the Democratic Party.
There was a meme that was going around among Republicans for quite a while in which the Democrats have this tendency, folks on the left have this tendency, where they say things like, what we really need is we need celebrities to sound off on X. Why is Taylor Swift remaining silent in the face of X political issue?
Why, Taylor Swift, why don't you have a comment on Brett Kavanaugh?
Taylor Swift, why don't you have a comment on climate change?
Taylor Swift, why don't you have a comment on this local dog catchers race in Tennessee?
It became a meme because the left demands fealty from its celebrities.
And then, and then the day came.
Now, Senya, my producer, is a big Taylor Swift fan.
When I say she's a big Taylor Swift fan, I mean she punishes me with Taylor Swift when I refuse to do my recording on time.
If I do not record on time, she starts to punish me like it's Gitmo with the music of Taylor Swift.
Yeah, there it is right now.
I just...
And it doesn't matter how many times I tell Senya that Taylor Swift is not, in fact, the world's most genius lyricist, that Taylor Swift is no Cole Porter, that, in fact, when she says we are never, ever, ever getting back together, together and ever don't rhyme.
This morning, Senya informed me that they do rhyme because they both end in ER, to which Colton quite aptly replied, so does the word murder.
But it does not rhyme with you together or ever, which is 100% true.
And also, Senya should know that since I have heard there's a rumor going around the office that Senya is in fact a serial killer.
In any case, Taylor Swift has finally broken her silence and it turns out just like everyone else in Hollywood and the music industry, she is a person of the left.
So here is what she tweeted.
Which I actually put out on Instagram, quote, I'm writing this post about the upcoming midterm elections on November 6th, in which I'll be voting in the state of Tennessee.
In the past, I've been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now.
I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country.
I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, because this is the big defining moral issue in Hollywood, even though we all agree that people should be treated With respect and honor in the United States and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is wrong.
I believe that systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening, and prevalent.
So this is Taylor Swift's basically her kind of torture note from the malice left.
They put her in a room.
They used some form, they shoved things under her fingernails, and they asked her to sign a statement that basically says she agrees with all of the main talking points of the left.
And she did so.
I'm gonna give her the benefit of the doubt on behalf of Senya that she doesn't, that she actually is a normal person who doesn't necessarily believe everything the left believes.
But I have my doubts, Senya.
I have my doubts.
Well, President Trump has his doubts as well.
So Taylor Swift finally came out with the typical left view that everybody always knew she had.
And no one's really that upset about it except for Senya.
The left wants people on the right to be upset, but I don't actually care what Taylor Swift has to say about politics, because as I've said one million times, I don't really care about what most celebrities have to say about politics.
In any case, President Trump, I think, had the final word on the matter.
Here was President Trump's opinion of Taylor Swift.
A sentence no sentient human being ever thought would be read into our political lexicon.
When George Washington founded the country, I'm sure he was thinking, When will we have a president who is a reality TV star commenting on a pop star's opinions of a Tennessee Senate race regarding LGBTQ rights?
Yep, things are weird.
Here's the president of the United States talking about Taylor Swift's musical abilities.
I'm sure Taylor Swift has nothing or doesn't know anything about her.
And let's say that I like Taylor's music about 25% less now, OK?
OK, so well done, President Trump.
Totally right on.
The left has continued to get more and more extreme.
In just a second, we're going to talk about all of that and we're going to talk about President Trump's response to all of that.
OK, so the leftist extremism has not mitigated at all, particularly in the aftermath of Brett Kavanaugh being sworn in.
So Brett Kavanaugh is sworn into the Supreme Court.
President Trump introduced him yesterday at the White House and left said, how dare President Trump do this?
Oh, except that Obama did it, and so did Bill Clinton.
This is sort of a regular thing.
But it was really bad because Trump did it.
That's what we've learned.
We've learned that normal things are really bad when President Trump does it.
In fact, President Trump is an uncivil boor, right?
That's what we keep hearing.
But Hillary Clinton just came out and said, you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.
So, all the civility on the right.
Remember we were told that the right was super dangerous in 2016?
And then it turns out the left supports Antifa?
Yeah, well, they're doing the same thing with regard to Trump doing normal things in the White House.
He introduced Brett Kavanaugh and did what I think is correct.
He apologized to Brett Kavanaugh for what Brett Kavanaugh just had to go through for the only for simple partisan political reasons.
Here's President Trump getting it correct.
On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure.
Our country.
A man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Okay, so President Trump is correct about all that stuff.
It turns out that independents didn't like how Kavanaugh was handled by Democrats either.
By a 28-point margin, independents were not particularly fond of how Democrats handled all of that.
But that's not going to stop the Democrats from doubling down.
Here's an MSNBC legal panelist yesterday talking about how Brett Kavanaugh is going to issue in, and I kid you not, he's going to usher in a thousand-year Reich, just like the Nazis.
Here it is on MSNBC.
If this reign that they now have control over all three branches of government, we're going to see if this reign lasts for 30 days, or two years, or a thousand year reich!
Because that is how, that is what these people have set themselves up for, and it's simply a question of whether or not the Democrats are going to join the battle and meet them at the polls.
It's a thousand-year Reich now, because Brett Kavanaugh isn't just a gang rapist, he's also a Nazi.
That's exciting news that we've found out about.
And my favorite part of this particular segment, by the way, was Noah Rothman, a guy with whom I'm friends, he's on MSNBC, writes for Commentary magazine, and he started trying to explain why Roe v. Wade was not settled law, and he was then accused of mansplaining on MSNBC, because this is how far we've come as a country.
He's not interested in overturning rules.
State laws will make it overturned.
Because he has a centrist philosophy and conservatives were very disinterested.
Are you kidding?
No, you heard him.
You heard him.
He does not have a middle.
Don't do that.
You're headed right towards a mansplaining.
Don't say I'm trying to explain something to a woman when it has to do with reproductive health care.
Don't ever do that.
Because we are not a good idea.
So we are not a good idea here is that this is a murderous Nazi regime, which was just invoked.
And I'm sorry, that is an inaccurate and incendiary session.
OK, don't use the word explain when you're talking about reproductive issues.
But what if you just got it wrong, lady?
Like, what if you're just wrong?
What if you don't know what Roe v. Wade does, or how it came about, or what its legal status is?
What if you don't understand conservative judicial philosophy?
It's mansplaining now.
In the words of my colleague, Andrew Klavan, I'll be happy to stop mansplaining when you start woman understanding.
It's just it's so silly.
It's so silly.
But don't worry, the media have really got their stuff together.
They're not they're not out of their minds in any way.
So, for example, when the president of the United States says that the left has decided to engage in a form of mobocracy, Jim Acosta, and find you somebody who loves you like Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta, Jim Acosta over on CNN, he says, well, President Trump knows about mobs.
He encourages mobs.
You know, there's talk of mob rule and so on.
I mean, Brooke, have you been to a Trump rally?
I mean, you know, you do hear rhetoric at those rallies that would conjure up images of a mob.
Go back to the 2016 campaign when the president said as a candidate that he would like to punch protesters in the face and so on.
And so perhaps the president knows what mob rule and mob tactics look like because he encourages them himself.
Okay, well, so do Democrats, because it turns out that people like Kamala Harris, who is a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she is now urging Democrats, clearly, to use anger to take back power.
This is what Democrats are now going to do.
They are actually encouraging anger and rage as a form of political currency.
Let this last week, and in all that we have experienced in terms of our frustrations and our anger, And our sadness, let's use this week to give us all that extra energy that we know we have.
To remember that the bottom line is that they may have the power right now, but we need to take it back.
So, anger and rage.
These are going to be the currency with which Democrats attempt to buy the next election.
We'll find out if they are successful or not in pretty short order, I think.
I think we'll find out pretty quickly here.
Okay, time for some things I like and things I hate.
So, things I like.
As you all know, it's a running joke on this program that I am a fan of my friends over at Birch Gold.
Birch Gold is one of the sponsors of this program.
I had the opportunity to sit down with one of their wealth advisors at Birch Gold a couple of days ago, and here's what it sounded like.
But first, everybody who watches the show knows that I'm a big Birch Gold fan, and that's not just because they're advertisers.
They're the folks that I trust with precious metals investing.
Right now, Philip Patrick, who's a senior precious metals specialist, has stopped by.
I want to ask him some questions about precious metals investing.
So, Patrick, let's begin with this.
Obviously, the national debt is out of control.
It continues to grow under Republicans, under President Trump.
Do you think that the national debt is going to result at some point in a certain amount of quantitative easing in inflation?
It's a tough question to answer because, quite frankly, we don't know how it's going to end up.
What I can say, and as you mentioned, of course, the situation is becoming quite dire, right?
Our national debt is close to doubled over the last 10 years.
Now, it's been tenable because, or manageable, I should say, because interest rates have been very low.
The average interest rate on our federal debt for the last 30 years has been about 5%.
We get back to that level, and it creates a big issue.
Debt repayment, $825 billion a year.
And at that point, it's somewhat insurmountable.
Do we then revert to quantitative easing again?
Who knows, but it's certainly a possibility.
And if the currency begins inflating, obviously it's one of the reasons that you'd want to hedge your bets with some investment in precious metals.
What does that mean in terms of the stock market?
Because right now the stock market is going great guns.
I have a lot of money in the stock market.
I'm sure a lot of our listeners have a lot of money in the stock market.
Where do you see that going?
It's tough to tell right now.
The numbers are somewhat frightening.
You look at something like the Buffett Indicator, a key metric for him to determine value in the markets.
Right now, the Buffett Indicator is suggesting that the stock market is significantly overvalued.
Then you start to scratch beneath the surface.
You look at price-to-earning ratios, and it really does look frightening.
I mean, we have a P ratio of 33.5 in the S&P right now.
Historical average is about 16.
It was 30 before the Great Depression, so the numbers don't look good.
OK, so if that's the case, how worried should we be?
How soon can we expect a correction of some sort?
Look, again, it's sort of tough to tell because we mentioned quantitative easing.
I think the market in this climate, to some degree, reeks of manipulation.
So how far can we push these problems away is the big question.
I'm sort of of the mind of the J.P.
Morgan.
J.P.
Morgan said a couple of years ago, within three years, they felt 92 percent chance it corrects.
That gives us about a year from today, and I'm of the mind, certainly.
We're looking at money flows now out of the Dow Jones.
Big institutions are starting to bail.
Typically, that's a sign that correction is to follow.
The big question that a lot of folks have when they look at precious metals investing is, of course, how much of my money should I put in precious metals?
Because when people hear precious metals investing, they think that folks are encouraging them to take every dollar they have, put it in gold bars and shove it in their basement.
And that obviously is not a great strategy.
I'm diversified, meaning I have some of my money in precious metals.
What do you think is the proper way to think about this?
Well, first of all, I think you hit the nail on the head.
I mean, you certainly don't take everything you have and put it into precious metals or really anything, quite frankly.
Look, I think for an individual thinking about it, the first thing you have to consider is your own comfort level, right?
Comfort is important.
I don't think you ever push beyond that.
Outside of that, you've got to think about what you're trying to achieve.
So I would say most of our customers are looking at a hedge.
Precious metals work very well because they tend to be contrarian to the markets.
The idea being one side goes down, the other goes up.
Well, the only thing to think about is in order for that to function, It has to be weighted proportionally and it has to be sufficient enough to function.
OK, so tell me a little bit about Birchgold specifically.
So I've talked about why I trust Birchgold, the five star reviews, the A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and all the rest.
But folks here, you know, a lot of different shows with a lot of different gold companies.
What's the distinction between Birchgold and some of those other companies?
I mean, you mentioned a lot of the stuff there, but I think the key difference for us is the approach and the style.
For us, it's about education.
You know, I think that for an individual to make a decision effectively, they have to have the tools in order to do that.
And that's what we really try and focus on.
It's providing information, giving our customers the information, the knowledge they need to make the right decision for themselves.
OK, so I have to ask you, how did you get into this business in the first place?
Because you're a pretty trustworthy guy.
It's one of the reasons I like working with you folks at Birchgold.
How did you get into this?
Me personally, I was a banker.
I was working for Citigroup.
I was a wealth manager.
Actually, in and around the time of the 2008 crash, I started to Think about what would be good moving forward, what sort of climate we were heading in, and ultimately it led me to Birch Gold Group and to the United States.
Well, as I've said before, Birch Gold Group, they're the folks that I trust with Precious Metals Investing.
They do have that A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
They do have the five-star ratings from an enormous number of clients.
And I know they're giving away comprehensive 16-page free kits when you go and check out birchgold.com.
So go check that out right now.
You can get all the information you need.
And then talk to somebody like Philip over there.
He'll tell you everything that you need to know about investing in precious metals.
Make sure that you feel secure because the folks at Birchgold, they don't want to just sell you something.
They want you to feel secure in your investment.
They want you to know what your expectations are.
And as I've said before, we live in a really uncertain environment politically, internationally.
Things are very good right now.
Well, sometimes that means that it's the calm before the storm and it's worthwhile being diversified.
It's worthwhile making sure that you have Enough in the bank to ensure that should things change on the stock market front, that you are insured against possible change in the future.
Gold has never been worth zero.
So go check it out.
My friends over at birchgold.com slash Ben, they really do do a wonderful job.
Philip, thanks so much for stopping by.
I really appreciate it.
Thanks for having me, Ben.
Okay, a couple of other things that I like today.
So there's a new movie coming out on Friday.
It is Gosnell.
It was worked on by my friend Andrew Clavin and my other friend Nick Searcy.
Obviously, Philem McAleer and Anne McElhaney are behind it as well.
And here's a little bit of the preview.
You should go see this because Hollywood would not make a movie about the most prolific serial killer in American history.
It took a crowdfunding effort by the right to actually make this happen.
Stars Dean Cain, another person I'm friendly with.
And I've seen the movie.
The movie is quite good.
And it is all about the discovery, investigation, and prosecution of an abortion doctor who was killing babies after they were out of the womb and was responsible for the death of women he was operating on inside his clinic.
All right, listen up.
We are looking for anything that looks like drugs or paraphernalia.
Philadelphia Police Department.
We have a search warrant.
What is that smell?
I mean, you gotta see this.
Is this normal?
I don't know.
I've never been in an abortion clinic before.
You are not gonna believe what I saw last night.
How many?
So far, we found over 30 of them.
A healthy woman goes into a clinic, comes out dead, and there's no police report?
Files have been moved recently.
Look at this.
You'll be the prosecutor who went after reproductive rights, and you'll be a racist to boot.
You've got a lot of folk who'd like to see abortion outlawed.
And this is not going to be the case that gives them an excuse.
Prosecution has offered you a plea bargain, Dr. Gosnell.
The movie's well worth watching, and it's, you know, the only movie that's ever been made really on the abortion topic in a serious way, so...
Or at least in a mainstream kind of crime thriller way.
But this happens to be a true story as well.
My good friend Zoe Rachel is in this as well.
So I have a lot of friends in this movie.
So, you know, take my review with a grain of salt, but then go see the movie because it is worth seeing.
And we should also support conservative entertainment when it gets made.
Other things that I like to say, one more thing that I like since, you know, it is a sad day with Nikki Haley going, I have to do some things I like to to make myself feel a little bit better about life.
So one of the people who won a Nobel Prize this week is a guy known as Dr. Miracle.
He's a gynecologist named Dr. Dennis Mukwege, and he's been mentioned as a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And this year he was awarded the prize along with Nadia Murad, who is a member of the Yazidi minority in northern Iraq, who was taken captive by ISIS members and held as a sex slave for three months before escaping her captors.
Dr. Mukheje opened a hospital called Panzi Hospital in 1999, and he wanted to improve the maternal mortality rates in the capital of Eastern Congo, where about 1 in 100 women died during childbirth.
But their first patient hadn't come to deliver a baby.
She'd been raped with extreme violence.
So the doctor started working on rape cases.
He's treated tens of thousands of women for rape since opening Panzi Hospital.
Those survivors who range in age from toddlers to seniors suffered complex gynecological injuries inflicted by members of rebel groups and the Congolese military.
The healing process goes beyond surgery and therapy.
According to NPR, the Pansy healing model is a five pillar process.
And he talks about how he's helped all of these women.
The five pillars are medical treatment, psychosocial therapy, socioeconomic support and training, community reintegration and legal assistance.
And he's been known in humanitarian circles for years, but it's about time that he won a Nobel Peace Prize because that actually is something well worth celebrating.
Thank goodness.
I mean, sometimes I guess the Nobel Committee actually gets it right on occasion.
So that's that's worth noting.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
So things that I hate today.
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, she's back.
I'm not meaning to catcall her here.
I mean, I don't really even know Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, but she just keeps saying silly things.
And this week, she's decided that the Electoral College is the shadow of slave power.
This is what she said.
She said, What now?
It is well past time we eliminate the Electoral College, a shadow of slavery's power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.
What now?
So it is worth noting that the state of Virginia was one of the most populous states in the Union when the United States was originally formulated.
They weren't necessarily in love with the idea of an Electoral College specifically because of that, right?
James Madison didn't actually want a Senate because he felt like we should be represented by population because he was from the state of Virginia.
The Electoral College is not about the shadow of slave power.
It's thanks to the Electoral College that Abraham Lincoln was president, is the truth.
Because Abraham Lincoln did not win a majority of the vote in 1860.
You want a minority of the vote.
If it had been a popular vote, maybe they'd have a runoff.
Maybe there'd be a different system.
But that's not how it worked.
The Electoral College was designed for a couple of purposes.
One, to allow states to weigh in in slightly outsized fashion.
And two, to provide a bulwark against the election of complete tyrants.
It was not created in order to protect slavery.
That was not the purpose of the Electoral College.
So Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez doing solid work there as per her usual arrangement.
Other things that I hate today.
There's a piece in the Washington Post all about this podcast and the Pod Save America Bros.
It's called The Battle in Your Earbuds, The Bros of Political Podcasting and Their Quest to Reinvent Punditry.
I think there's a lot about this piece that's good and fine.
Dan Zak wrote it, and I appreciate Dan taking the time to write the piece.
I will say that I believe Dan is of the political left.
I don't think that I'm making any great revelation when I say this.
The reason I say this is because there's a fair bit of embedded bias and just even the descriptions in the story.
So for example, it starts in a drab office building across from a used car lot in the San Fernando Valley.
The host of the nation's most popular conservative podcast was preparing to interpret reality for his listeners.
So we are in, you know, a drab office building across from a used car lot and we both work there.
It ain't that drab.
Okay, our offices are actually quite nice.
And then, he starts talking about the Positive America Bros, and they're just, they're the greatest.
The Positive America Bros, they are just awesome.
My favorite part of this story is, he asked me about the Crooked Media guys, and I said, and I've invited them on the show, I disagree with everything they say, this is a direct quote, but I think they're good at what they do.
And Tommy Veeder, who drove a van down by the river until he worked for Obama, he said, his response to me saying these guys are good at what they do even though I disagree with them was, please tell baby Steve Bannon I say hello.
Which makes no sense at all, considering that the number one critic of Steve Bannon for years was a guy who happens to be talking to you right now.
So that's a bizarre statement, but it just shows the kind of nastiness that folks on the left engage in when they feel like engaging in it.
But there's so much of this story that's actually kind of funny.
So...
Just, again, the contrast that they draw.
I love this.
On his show, Shapiro reads ads from a sponsor that sells a three-month emergency food supply plus seed packets for when things finally go south.
Pod Save America shows for a company that delivers fresh ingredients to your doorstep so that you can cook yourself a single healthy meal, lentils and quinoa dressed in tahini perhaps, as the world burns.
Notice which sponsor they chose to highlight for us?
Like, listen, I'm proud of all of our sponsors.
All of our sponsors are things that folks on our staff have tried, they're things that We recommend?
Okay, so I'm not ashamed of any of our sponsors, but it's just dishonest to suggest that we are selling survival supplies, while Pod Save America is selling Blue Apron, because you know who advertises on our program?
Blue Apron.
Okay, like, so what, what, what?
Okay, and then, this is my favorite.
America, through the crooked lens, is a grand experiment, ever more perfect and expansive, but endangered by ancient prejudices, persistent injustices, and a despotic dunce in the White House.
That's their take on crooked media, right?
Just wonderful guys.
America through the Shapiro lens is civilization's greatest triumph, a beacon of liberty and opportunity that is under assault from an evil self-victimizing cabal of leftist baby killers.
Well, not quite.
I do think that leftist ideology is evil.
And I think a lot of people have bought into an ideology that is deeply destructive to the country.
But to present me as some sort of radical compared to the Pod Save America bros is insane.
It's a crazy, crazy characterization.
They're just, you know, they're just trying to fight bigotry.
And as for me, I'm trying to fight leftist baby killers.
That's my thing.
Because that's certainly how I talk on a regular basis.
You know, me.
Famous for my incendiary rants.
That's my shtick.
I also like how they describe the offices, how Dan describes the offices here.
He says that the office at Crooked Media has the look and has the look of a startup in the feel of a small town newsroom.
It's just unbelievable.
How do they describe our offices?
I mean, this is where you see the bias, right?
Shapiro's headquarters has the look of a think tank and the feel of a refurbished doctor's office.
Really?
Okay, sure.
And then I like when he says that we have about 55 employees and then we have three other podcasts all hosted by conservative men.
Right, because we're a conservative company.
Turns out, how many conservatives are working over a Podsafe America?
You know, we actually have a, I would guarantee you, we have a much more diverse group of people who work for us than the Podsafe bros have.
I would not doubt this whatsoever.
There are folks in our office who I'm sure voted for a Democrat in the last election.
There are folks in our office who didn't vote at all in the last election.
How many non-democratic activists are working with folks over at Pod Save America?
So, you know, overall, I think the article is not bad.
I don't want to exaggerate, but I'm just noting kind of the subtle bias that infuses a huge amount of media coverage when it comes to this particular area.
And noting that that does have an impact on how people how people read.
OK, well, we will be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
Tomorrow we are speaking in Memphis.
I believe I'm at University.
Is it University of Memphis?
I'm trying to remember.
We are in Memphis and we're getting the name of the university.
So I don't screw this up in in short order.
Colton frantically, frantically paging University of Memphis.
That's right.
So we'll see you there.
And I look forward to that.
In the meantime, Let's take a drink for Nikki Haley, be a little bit sad, and we'll be here tomorrow.
And no more Taylor Swift.
No more Taylor Swift, Senya.
We're done with that.
Okay.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Caramina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.