Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 24, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

51:37

The Question Of Motives | Ep. 645

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Bombs mailed to prominent Democratic figures, Megyn Kelly gets into hot water for her comments on Halloween, and President Trump comes under fire for saying he's a nationalist.
	We'll get into all of it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Man, things are getting quite ugly out there, and we are going to get into why that is and what we can do to actually stop this.
	Why it is that we are, not only why we're polarized, but what we can do to sort of take the temperature down a little bit, because it seems like that's something we need to do, especially in the run-up to this election.
	First, let's talk about those trips you've been taking to the post office.
	I know, you run a business, and that means that you have to take all your stuff to the post office and then you have to mail it.
	That's time consuming.
	The post office is a wonderful place with great services, but why do you want to spend that time in the car or in line instead?
	You should just do it straight from your desk at stamps.com.
	With stamps.com, you can get all the amazing services of the post office directly from your desk, 24-7, when it's 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, you just click.
	Print, mail, and you're done.
	We use it here at the Daily Wire offices.
	It saves us time, and it saves us money.
	I use it at my house as well.
	You can use it there, too.
	And one of the beautiful things about this is, again, you don't have to wait for the post office to open for you to actually print out the postage, print it directly onto the envelope, onto a sticker, directly onto a piece of paper, and then tape it to the piece of mail.
	It's very easy to do, and it's going to take you a lot less time, and it'll save you money, too.
	Right now, if you use promo code SHAPIRO, you get a special offer.
	55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
	All you have to do is go to stamps.com, and before you do anything else, click on that radio microphone at the top of the homepage and type in promo code SHAPIRO.
	That's stamps.com.
	Enter promo code SHAPIRO.
	Go check it out right now.
	Okay, so the breaking news today is this really, really awful news that explosive divisives have now been found, addressed to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
	This after yesterday, there was a story about an explosive device sent to the home of George Soros, the major leftist donor.
	All of this, of course, is abysmal, disgusting, horrific.
	Whoever is doing this should be arrested, they should be tried, and then they should go to jail for the rest of their lives.
	This is just an awful, awful thing.
	And what's amazing is that if you say that publicly, there's a group of people who immediately suggest that it's a false flag attack, or that, depending on the target of these sorts of bombs, that it's okay, which suggests to me that there is a collective A sort of collective mental illness that's fallen across a small but significant group of people who believe that the other side is so evil that everything up to and including sending pipe bombs in the mail to them is justified which is just sick.
	That means that we have a sickness in our society that needs to be eradicated.
	A mental sickness in our society that needs to be eradicated.
	Here's the story from ABC News.
	Explosive devices addressed to Hillary Clinton's home when the House and former President Barack Obama were intercepted.
	The Time Warner Center that is home to CNN in New York City was evacuated after a suspicious package that apparently looks like a pipe bomb was sent there.
	A suspicious package was also received at the New York City office of Governor Andrew Cuomo, sources told ABC News.
	Which should narrow it down a little bit.
	It sounds like this is probably somebody from New York State if they're sending it to Andrew Cuomo as opposed to, say, Governor Jerry Brown in California.
	Investigators are working to determine whether the two devices addressed to Clinton and Obama are connected to a pipe bomb found earlier this week in the home of mailbox of billionaire George Soros near where the Clintons live in Chappaqua, New York.
	The preliminary belief is that all three devices are of similar pipe-bomb style construction.
	Now, the immediate jump by folks on the left was to suggest that this was a right-winger who hates left-wingers and has been inspired by President Trump.
	As I have said for years now, I despise when people blame individual acts of violence or attempted violence on generalized political rhetoric.
	Unless you are actively calling for violence and someone takes you up on that offer, you're not responsible for the violent actions of people who take you To the ultimate extreme in terms of violence.
	So, for example, when a Bernie Sanders supporter went and shot up a congressional baseball game and nearly killed the House Majority Whip, and the media covered it for all of 15 minutes.
	I didn't blame Bernie Sanders because that wasn't Bernie Sanders' fault.
	When a kind of fringe member of Black Lives Matter shot up police officers in Dallas a couple of years ago, right after Barack Obama had made speeches condemning police officers as broadly racist, I didn't say that that was Barack Obama's fault.
	It wasn't Barack Obama's fault.
	It was an act of evil on the part of a person who was actually evil or mentally ill or both.
	And that had nothing to do with Barack Obama's words.
	I think that you can raise the temperature in society and do serious damage to the society because you have raised the temperature of that society, but I'm not going to attribute individual acts of violence and evil to individual political viewpoints unless those viewpoints are actively calling for violence.
	And to do anything less leads to the sort of censorship that makes the country a worse place in that way.
	If you believe that free speech is inherently connected to violence, you're more likely to crack down on free speech in order to prevent that violence, and that seems to be more of a broad danger than individuals in the United States who do evil things.
	So with that said, obviously this is really, really bad stuff, and it goes to the question of motives.
	Because what we are seeing now, why is this breaking out so much?
	Why are we seeing ricin sent to Susan Collins in Maine?
	Why are we seeing rocks thrown through the windows of Kevin McCarthy's offices in California?
	Why are we seeing bombs put in George Soros's mailbox?
	It's because they're a group of people who have been fully convinced that the other side, and I don't just mean the other side ideas, I mean people who are on the other side are actively members of evil.
	They're Hitlerian figures.
	You know, that sort of rhetoric is responsible for heating up the temperature.
	It's not responsible for individual acts of violence, but it is responsible for an increase in the temperature, and the more you increase the temperature, the more you can expect that there are going to be people who are going to go to the ultimate extreme of attempting to engage in violence.
	You've seen it on the left, you've seen it some on the right, and it's really ugly no matter how you slice it.
	It seems to me that a lot of this is springing from A basic failure of values.
	And the basic failure of values is something that we call in Hebrew, there's a Hebrew commandment that you're supposed to consider everybody in their best possible light.
	The Hebrew phrase for it is, which literally means that you're supposed to think of everybody's merits.
	We don't do that anymore.
	We tend to, instead, think of everybody's demerits.
	We tend to think of the worst form of everybody's arguments.
	We tend to think of the worst motives on the part of people with whom we disagree.
	We see someone say something, and the first thing we think is not, okay, what's the reasonable explanation for what they're saying?
	Or what, maybe, were they thinking?
	Instead, we immediately jump to, this person is the worst person in the world, and their rhetoric is obviously intended for the worst possible effect.
	Now, I can't say I've been innocent in this, because I don't think anybody in politics is innocent in this.
	But I do think that we're going to have to start trying to attribute to people, perhaps, a less vicious motive than we have been attributing to them so far.
	Because people hate each other, not because of what they do, but because of what they think the other person is thinking.
	That's where we are in American society.
	It's one thing to hate another person because of something that they do.
	Somebody murders your father, you're allowed to hate them.
	But what we have come to in society is actions that can be interpreted in a couple of ways, and we have decided to interpret them in the least flattering, most nasty way about somebody else.
	So to take an example, there's a religious baker in Colorado.
	He says, listen, I don't want to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because I believe that homosexuality is sinful.
	We immediately attribute that to malice.
	We immediately attribute that to, that's because the baker is a mean man who hates gay people.
	Never mind that the baker has been serving gay couples for years in his establishment, and he's just saying, I don't want to be roped or hamstrung into violating my own religious precepts.
	No, we have to attribute to him hatred.
	We have to attribute to him viciousness.
	And we see this on the other side as well.
	There are folks on the left who will say things like, well, I want nationalized healthcare.
	And instead of us saying, on the right, well, maybe they want nationalized healthcare because they don't understand the issue, or because they misunderstand how nationalized healthcare works, or because they have a good faith argument about how we should redistribute resources, instead we go to, it's because they want control.
	It's because they want control.
	Once you start explaining people's motives without reference to their actual behavior, You're going to get yourself into hot water politically and you're going to divide the country on a more significant and long-lasting level.
	And yet this is also... Here's the problem.
	This is also the stuff that wins you elections.
	The stuff that wins you elections in today's society...
	is castigating your opponent as morally somehow deficient.
	Saying that your opponent is not just wrong, but evil.
	You know, Ronald Reagan was famous for saying that it isn't that Democrats are just evil, it's that they know so much that isn't so.
	In other words, he attributed to ignorance what he could not attribute to malice.
	And it's a rule that I've had on the program.
	Try to attribute to stupidity what you can't attribute to malice.
	But when it comes to political fights, the easiest thing to do is attribute malice to the other side.
	And you're seeing this manifest in a couple of different ways.
	Let's take, for example, the way that the left has decided to read President Trump's comments about nationalism.
	So the President of the United States gave a speech a couple of days ago in which he was talking about illegal immigration.
	And President Trump is no stranger to character attacks.
	He uses them on a fairly frequent basis against his political opponents, whether they're former opponents like Ted Cruz or whether they are opponents in the Democratic Party.
	Why?
	Because it's effective.
	It's a lot more effective to attack somebody's character than to attack their ideas.
	Because we tend to vote based on whether we think somebody is a good person or not, not based on whether we believe their ideas are good.
	See, evaluating ideas takes time and effort.
	Evaluating ideas requires you to actually sit there and determine whether you think that the evidence is there to support a particular idea.
	But evaluating a human being, you can do like that.
	And science tends to show that that's exactly how we deal with other human beings in our daily life and in politics more broadly.
	When you meet somebody, you tend to make a judgment about that person within the first five seconds of meeting them, whether you think this is a good person or a bad person, a nice person or a mean person, a person who you think is going to benefit your life or a person who's going to be a detriment to your life.
	You make that decision in seconds.
	That's a lot easier and a lot more instinctive.
	The human brain is built for that, rather than thinking through, okay, what are the policies that this politician is suggesting?
	We as a society need to start thinking about the policies a lot more and stop attributing motives so much.
	But again, it is easier and more electorally lucrative to suggest evil motive on the part of people that you face down.
	Character attacks are deeply effective.
	I wrote an entire book about this in 2013 called Bullies, and the entire premise of the book was that basically the left had decided to leave idea arguments outside the realm of the norm and instead have decided to attack on a character basis everybody on the right so the latest example here's president trump a couple of days ago saying that he's a nationalist not a globalist now even implicit in this comment by president trump is a character attack on the left the character attack on the left is that people in the united states who disagree with him about immigration actually don't care about the united states right
	that's sort of implicit in what president trump is saying but the real point that he's making is that his priorities are the protection of the american people above all else and other priorities such as for example kindness or human rights those take second priority to protection of the nation's borders Maybe for human rights reasons, maybe for charitable reasons, but that's the way he thinks of things.
	We're going to see in a second what President Trump said and also how the Democrats responded because they didn't respond by making a critique of President Trump's ideas or what he was saying.
	Instead, they basically suggested the worst form of President Trump.
	President Trump wasn't spouting an idea.
	President Trump was only saying this stuff because President Trump is a big meanie, a terrible, terrible person.
	Again, this is not unique to one side of the aisle.
	It's just the most convenient example today.
	And we'll get to a couple other examples of it too in just a second.
	First, let's talk about improving your business.
	You know what's not smart?
	Job sites that overwhelm you with tons of the wrong resumes.
	You know what is smart?
	ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
	Unlike other job sites, ZipRecruiter doesn't wait for candidates to find you. ZipRecruiter finds them for you.
	It's powerful matching technology, scans thousands of resumes, it identifies people with the right skills, education, and experience for your job, and then actively invites them to apply to get qualified candidates fast.
	There's no more sorting through the wrong resumes, No more waiting for the right candidates to apply.
	ZipRecruiter is rated the number one employment-seeking site by employers in the United States.
	That comes from hiring sites on Trustpilot with over a thousand reviews.
	Right now, my listeners can get a special deal.
	deal you can try zip recruiter for free at zip recruiter.com slash daily wire at zip recruiter.com slash daily wire again zip recruiter.com slash daily wire zip recruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire if we decide that employees at this company say for example young employees who don't know old songs and thus make everyone feel incredibly old at this company you know they'll Let's say that we decide, you know what?
	We've had enough of them.
	We decide to replace them.
	ZipRecruiter is what we'll use.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	No, that wasn't a passive aggressive reference to Colton Haas, our young reporter who didn't know the song No Scrubs.
	It wasn't that at all.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire to try it for free.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed The smartest way to hire.
	OK, so here's President Trump talking about nationalism and then we'll look at the Democratic response because this is driving up the temperature.
	Again, it's not unique to one side.
	I keep repeating that because I think it's important.
	I think it's important, especially in light of the fact that somebody obviously sending bombs to Democrats.
	OK, Democrats have been engaged in mob violence and now some crazy person or evil person or both is sending bombs to Democrats in the mail.
	So obviously the temperature has risen on both sides.
	And by the way, there are studies that show this.
	There's a chart I talked about on this program, I think, a couple of weeks ago, when we were in Memphis, that showed the level of hatred within each party for the other party has been rising consistently for years, but it has skyrocketed among Republicans.
	And in any case, here's President Trump talking about nationalism, then you're going to see the sort of failure of that Jewish principle I was talking about, Dan LeKauf's Zichus, the idea of trying to think of people in the best possible light.
	You're going to see how Democrats respond that violates that precept.
	Here's President Trump.
	A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much.
	And you know what?
	We can't have that.
	You know, they have a word.
	It sort of became old-fashioned.
	It's called a nationalist.
	And I say, really, we're not supposed to use that word.
	You know what I am?
	I'm a nationalist, okay?
	I'm a nationalist.
	Okay, so you can hear the sort of implicit character attack.
	President Trump is leveling at folks on the left there.
	But he's not actually saying something racist.
	He's not saying something sexist or bigoted here.
	He's saying that some people have a priority, which is to uplift places in the world that are not the United States.
	That's not my priority.
	Now, you can say that President Trump is strawmanning his opposition.
	I think that's a fair critique.
	You can say that President Trump is maligning his opposition in an unfair way.
	Fair, but that's not how Democrats reacted.
	The way Democrats reacted was by doubling down on the maligning.
	So they say that when President Trump says nationalist, what he really means is that he is a racist.
	So here is Joe Biden.
	Remember, Joe Biden, that guy who was at John McCain's funeral calling for a new, better politics.
	Joe Biden, the guy who said that John McCain and I, we got along, we were best friends because we never questioned one another's motives.
	Here is Joe Biden at a rally last night suggesting that Donald Trump is like George Wallace, an actual segregationist.
	Who, by the way, was a Democrat and therefore is probably closer to Joe Biden than to Donald Trump.
	In any case, here is Joe Biden saying that Trump is like George Wallace thanks to the nationalism comments.
	No president has ever led by fear.
	Not Lincoln, not Roosevelt, not Kennedy, not Reagan.
	This president is more like George Wallace than George Washington.
	OK, I mean, that is about as vile a statement you can make about another human being as is possible.
	And this is a guy who says that he wants a new kind of politics, and then he maligns the president of the United States as George Wallace, an active segregationist.
	It's an amazing statement, but again, not unexpected from Joe Biden, a man who suggested that Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney, the most milquetoast candidate in American history, wanted to put black people back in chains during the 2012 campaign.
	These sort of character attacks have been happening since long before Trump, and they continue unabated on the part of people on both sides, but the left really has ramped it up.
	There's no question the left has ramped it up.
	I think the right has ramped it up in reactionary response.
	Here's more evidence of that.
	So, Maisie Hirono, senator from Hawaii.
	When President Trump says that he's a nationalist, she says maybe it's because he's a white supremacist or an anti-Semite.
	We should stop giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't understand what he means when he refers to nationalists or any of these other terms.
	These are not just dog whistles, but it's bullhorns.
	It's racism.
	It's basically, for many people, it's anti-Semitic.
	It's white supremacy.
	He knows very well what he's talking about, even if he professes otherwise.
	Okay, Maisie, my antenna is pretty high up there for anti-Semitism.
	When the president says nationalism, I'm not hearing Nazi.
	When the president says nationalism, that is not what he is saying.
	He is saying that he prioritizes the United States' border security over the human rights of people trying to make their way across that border.
	You may disagree with that, but there is no way that that has anything to do with racism or anti-Semitism.
	But this became the actual talking point across the left yesterday.
	Jim Acosta of CNN.
	And ladies, find you somebody who loves you like Jim Acosta loves him some Jim Acosta.
	Here is Jim Acosta saying, well, maybe when President Trump says nationalist, he means white nationalist.
	Okay, or maybe when Jim Acosta says stuff, I just think that he's an idiot.
	Here's Jim Acosta.
	When you're demonizing Middle Easterners and making the suggestion that they're terrorists and so on in that caravan without offering any proof, and then calling yourself a nationalist in front of thousands and thousands of people, I don't think it's a stretch for a lot of Americans out there to wonder whether or not the president is secretly considering himself a white nationalist.
	So much journalisming.
	So much objective journalisming there from Jim Acosta.
	I don't think it's any wonder that people ask whether the president is a Nazi when he says things like, we should protect our border and nationalism.
	I mean, flashback to Barack Obama 2005 saying exactly the same thing.
	Barack Obama actually said this, right?
	Here's Obama circa 2005 when he was just a senator, barely a glint in the nation's eye.
	Here he was saying exactly the same thing as Donald Trump.
	We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States, but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those who are following the law.
	We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.
	Okay, so, you know, again, I guess that Barack Obama, way back when, was a sort of white nationalist also, you know, being half-white.
	I guess that he was a white nationalist as well.
	It wasn't just Jim Acosta, who, at this point, basically everything that he says should be prefaced with, Dear Diary, because he says all of the quiet stuff out loud.
	It was also NBC News' Peter Alexander, more objective journalism-ing from the mainstream media on the issue of nationalism.
	Yeah, it definitely does.
	I mean, undertones that are not just racial, they're xenophobic.
	This is something that the president has sort of shied away from in the past.
	Obviously, nationalism was a phrase that Steve Bannon obviously embraced over the course of the campaign, and a lot of the president's opponents tried to pin this idea on him.
	Now listen.
	I'm somebody who has said that I prefer patriotism to nationalism.
	I don't think that nationalism alone is enough.
	I think there are ties that bind us, ties of history, ties of culture, but what actually makes the United States the United States is the root idea embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and backed by 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian history, or rather 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian history.
	That's what makes the United States the United States, is the idea of classical liberalism combined with cultural conservatism.
	That's what makes the United States unique.
	That is a unique idea in world history.
	So I'm not such a big fan, even, of the president using nationalistic language.
	But to suggest that that is white supremacy is just idiocy.
	But again, this comes back to the basic idea.
	You want to raise the temperature in a country?
	You want to raise the hackles of people on the other side?
	All you have to do is just question motives day in and day out.
	And that's what we are now in the business of doing.
	And again, I want to work on this myself.
	Every time I give some sort of, you know, values advice, I try to think about how often I violate those values.
	I would imagine I do it fairly often.
	I want to work on it myself.
	I think we all should work on it because the truth is that in a country where we agree on 90% of our values, we really do, I think, in the end, agree on 90% of our values, the only way you can divide us is by Castigating people who disagree with you on the manifestation of those values as evil, nasty, bigoted, horrible people.
	By the way, this is how you got Trump on the left.
	I mean, you wanna know how you got Trump?
	This is how you got Trump.
	By castigating folks in the middle of the country as deplorable, bitter clingers for 10 years.
	And then they said, you know what?
	Screw you.
	We don't like you either.
	That's how you got this situation.
	That's pretty much American politics in a nutshell.
	I'm gonna show you another example of that.
	That came out of a weird place yesterday.
	Megyn Kelly got herself into hot water over on NBC.
	And I think there are some illustrative lessons to be learned there.
	But first, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights.
	So, the Second Amendment is obviously designed in order to protect those key rights in the Bill of Rights.
	And like many of you, I am a gun owner.
	Depending on the state you live in and the concealed carry laws, maybe you want to protect your family when you go out.
	Maybe you don't live in a crappy state like California.
	And you actually have the capacity to concealed carry.
	Well, that's why you're going to need a great holster to properly hold your gun.
	And you're a law-abiding citizen, you want to keep your fellow citizens safe?
	Concealed carry is a wonderful thing.
	G-Code creates handcrafted holsters made right here in the United States.
	Not just run-of-the-mill, prepackaged, molded holsters.
	We're talking about...
	Holsters that are made by military veterans, meticulous about quality, innovation, and workmanship.
	Every holster G-Code makes is quality checked at four different stages of the process.
	They are test fitted with an actual firearm to ensure proper fit and function.
	You're not just getting something that was made in a foreign country off a production line.
	This stuff was made by military vets.
	The owners of G-Code are military veterans.
	They're committed to excellence in everything they do, and it's the only holster you're ever going to want.
	Whether you're military, law enforcement, or a civilian, G-Code has a holster just right for you.
	Every G-Code product is designed for real-world use.
	No fluff, no hype, just great performance.
	Learn more, order online at range5.com.
	That's range, the number 5, dot com, range5.com, and use promo code Ben for 15% off.
	Go check it out right now.
	Use promo code Ben for 15% off.
	Alrighty, so...
	There was a big controversy that broke out yesterday over Megan Kelly.
	Now, full disclosure, I'm friends with Megan Kelly.
	I think that Megan Kelly is a really nice lady.
	I used to be a regular guest on her Fox News show when she was on Fox News, and I wish her nothing but the best.
	Megan got herself into hot water because she was on yesterday on NBC News, and they were doing soft stuff.
	And what was the soft stuff they were doing?
	It was the NBC morning show.
	Well, the soft stuff that they were doing was they were talking about Halloween costumes.
	Well, this always gets into dicey areas because as soon as you start talking about limits on Halloween costumes and what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed, people get very easily offended by Halloween costumes to the point where people on the left have been suggesting in recent years that white girls shouldn't be able to dress up as Moana for Halloween.
	We talked about it last Halloween.
	It's just idiocy.
	It's just idiocy.
	My daughter is going to dress up as any Disney princess she chooses.
	But Megan steps into some pretty fraught territory here because she's talking about the use of dressing up as black folks.
	For Halloween, whether you can put on black makeup to dress up as a black person for Halloween.
	And here's what Megan has to say.
	And this goes to the central contention I'm making today, which is that people are jumping to the worst possible conclusion about people's motives without actually analyzing what the motives are.
	So here is Megan talking about Halloween costumes involving putting on black makeup or darkening your skin for a costume.
	And the blowback was just enormous.
	Okay, so she got in all sorts of trouble because she said when I was a kid it was okay to dress up as like Diana Ross.
	Like I was a big Diana Ross fan, and in my neighborhood if somebody darkened their skin to look like Diana Ross, because if you just put on a fright wig, you know, to look like Diana Ross, people still didn't know who you were, so you darkened your skin or whatever.
	People went nuts over this.
	This is Megyn Kelly being ignorant and bigoted and racist.
	And so Megyn Kelly actually had to issue an apology.
	Here's what she said.
	The iconic Diana Ross came up as an example.
	To me, I thought, why would it be controversial for someone dressing up as Diana Ross to make herself look like this amazing woman as a way of honoring and respecting her?
	I realize now that such behavior is indeed wrong, and I am sorry.
	The history of blackface in our culture is abhorrent.
	The wound is too deep.
	I've never been a PC kind of person, but I understand that we do need to be more sensitive in this day and age, particularly on race and ethnicity issues, which, far from being healed, have been exacerbated in our politics over the past year.
	This is a time for more understanding, love, sensitivity, and honor, and I want to be part of that.
	I look forward to continuing that discussion.
	I'm honored to work with all of you every day.
	Megan.
	I think that her apology is perfectly appropriate, by the way.
	But the outsized reactions to original comments is pretty astonishing.
	So here was Kirsten Powers, who supposedly is in favor of people saying what they want, freedom of speech.
	Here's what she tweeted.
	Dear white people who are upset that you can't dress up as another race or culture for Halloween, your feelings don't matter.
	The only feelings that matter are those who feel disrespected or mocked by you appropriating their culture for entertainment.
	Show some common decency.
	So, basically, the feelings of people who are non-white matter more than the feelings of people who are white.
	Now, I think that there is some actual nuance to this issue.
	Here is the nuance to this issue.
	Blackface has a long, terrible history in the United States.
	People actually dressing up as black folks in order to mock them was something that happened on a frequent basis all the way up till the 1950s and 1960s in the United States.
	And you can go back and you can watch old videos on YouTube of people dressing up, making their faces black, and giving themselves big lips in really, really racist fashion, and then singing Mammy songs in order to mock black folks.
	And it's very much the same thing as in anti-Semitic cultures for centuries where people would put on a hook nose and they'd put on a fake belly and curly side locks and then they would suggest that they were Jewish, right?
	I mean, it's the same sort of thing.
	Dressing up as a culture to mock that culture is disgusting, unacceptable, actually racist.
	Now, is that what Megyn Kelly was suggesting?
	This is where we get into the issue of assuming people's motives.
	Here's my opinion on people darkening their face for costumes like this.
	I agree that it's inappropriate specifically because of the past and I think that it is fair for people to look at this sort of thing and be sensitive about it.
	But I think it would also be worthwhile to recognize there is a difference between being ignorant slash racially insensitive and being racist.
	Nowhere was Megyn Kelly suggesting that black people should be mocked.
	Nowhere was Megyn Kelly suggesting that black people are inferior in any way.
	In fact, what Megyn Kelly was suggesting is that maybe white people want to dress up as some famous black people because they admire those famous black people.
	That is not the same thing as people dressing up in blackface.
	Now, again, that doesn't mean that it's okay to go to a frat party dressed as a black person with black makeup on.
	That's insensitive.
	And you should take into account black people's feelings about historic use of this sort of costuming for mockery.
	But I also think there's a difference between even a frat boy going to a party and a little girl who decides that she wants to dress up as Michelle Obama and so she puts on dark makeup.
	Because I think that you can pretty easily tell the difference in motives.
	The attempt to misattribute motives in our society is really gross.
	Megyn Kelly is not a racist.
	And Megyn Kelly was not attempting to be racist by that statement.
	At best, you know, at worst, at worst, Megyn Kelly was being ignorant of the history of blackface and the impact it still has on black folks in the United States.
	That's at worst.
	Okay, but there is no way that Megyn Kelly was actually suggesting it's okay to mock black people.
	That is not what was happening here.
	And yet, here is CNN's Don Lemon suggesting that Megyn Kelly actually is a racist because there's never been a time when blackface was acceptable.
	First of all, he doesn't know where she lived.
	He doesn't know what kind of parties she went to.
	Like, Don Lemon doesn't know that.
	So if his suggestion is that Megyn Kelly was a racist when she was seven years old because she dressed up as Diana Ross and blackened her face for it, I would suggest that Don Lemon doesn't really know what he's talking about.
	He may know what he's talking about historically with regard to blackface, but again, there's a difference between darkening your face for a costume to praise an African-American person and darkening your face to mock African-American people.
	And again, I've said several times in the segment, I still don't think that you should do it to praise African-American people specifically because there are too many black folks who are going to look at that and say, well, maybe you're mocking me.
	Maybe the real reason you're doing that is because you're mocking me.
	So out of sensitivity, you shouldn't do that.
	But the attempt to immediately attribute the worst available motive to Megyn Kelly is really telling, and it says something about the nastiness of our politics right now.
	Megyn is 47 years old.
	She's our age.
	There has never been a time In her 47 years, that black face has been acceptable.
	There were all white people on that panel.
	There were no African Americans, no people of color there to say, hey, Megan, not cool.
	Okay, so this is really, really absurd.
	Again, taking blackface seriously is fine, but misinterpreting motives is not.
	I'll give you an example.
	You wanna know how we should deal with these issues?
	Really how we should deal with these issues?
	The same way that Jamie Foxx deals with these issues.
	So Jamie Foxx is obviously an incredibly prominent black man in the United States, has made lots of money as a musician, as an actor, very talented guy.
	He's very close friends with Robert Downey Jr.
	A few years ago, he did a podcast with Joe Rogan.
	And in the middle of this podcast, the question of Robert Downey Jr.
	actually putting on blackface for the movie Tropic Thunder came up.
	Robert Downey Jr.
	was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.
	There is no way, by the way, that even, I think, when was Tropic Thunder made?
	Maybe 10 years ago?
	Eight years ago?
	Maybe eight years ago.
	In any case, there is no way that movie gets made, even today, because of the great sensitivity around identity politics.
	But here is Jamie Foxx's perfectly decent explanation of Robert Downey Jr.
	and how he feels about all of this.
	People have to understand where it comes from.
	There are real people out there that really mean you harm.
	Like, outside of us.
	I mean, there's some real people who really don't like you.
	Whatever you are.
	Whether you're black, you're white, you're straight, you're gay, whatever it is.
	There's some people who really don't like you.
	We're the entertainment.
	And it's easy, we're easy targets.
	Okay, so when Jamie Foxx suggests you have to know where it's coming from, there are some people who are bad out there who don't like you, but Robert Downey Jr.
	is not one of those people.
	Why don't we start thinking of each other as people who probably could be friends if we would stop treating each other like garbage?
	Hey, Megyn Kelly is not going to a party dressed in blackface to mock black people.
	And it is kind of amazing how certain people get away with this sort of stuff because everybody assumes the best motives on their part.
	So, for example, Tom Hanks, in 2004, was at a fundraiser.
	And at that fundraiser, there was a comedian who got up.
	His name was Glenn Frey.
	And he was actually making jokes while wearing blackface, right?
	He was actually darkened his face, and he was wearing a fright wig.
	And Tom Hanks was cool with that.
	Okay, the controversy lasted about five minutes, because Tom Hanks said, listen, that never should have happened, it was inappropriate, I don't know what was going on there, I understand people were offended, and everybody said, right, Tom Hanks isn't a racist, we know he didn't mean to mock black people, we know that he's not interested in somehow hurting black people, and everybody got on with their lives.
	But because we are interested right now in what can we pin people to the wall over, that makes for the worst available country, the worst version of ourselves.
	And that has to stop, whether we're talking about Megyn Kelly, or whether we're talking about President Trump, or whether we're talking about the attempt to nail people on the other side of the aisle in reverse.
	Okay, I'm going to talk a little bit more about this, plus I want to talk about the latest on the caravan issue in just a second, plus there's some breaking news on the return address of the suspicious packages.
	Which is kind of weird.
	We'll get to that in just a second.
	First, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights again, because your Second Amendment rights are crucial.
	And what that means is that you need a weapon that is going to function the way it's supposed to function.
	Bravo Company Manufacturing was started in a garage by a Marine vet more than two decades ago to build a professional-grade product that meets combat standards.
	BCM believes the same level of protection should be available to every American, regardless of whether they're a private citizen or a professional.
	BCM is not a sporting arms company.
	Well, that makes sense because the Second Amendment was not about shooting for fun.
	Okay, they design, engineer, and they manufacture life-saving equipment.
	They assume each rifle leaving their shop will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, a law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
	Each component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans to a life-saving standard.
	BCM feels a moral responsibility as Americans to provide tools that will not fail the user when they're not just looking down the sights at a paper target, but somebody coming to actually hurt them.
	To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to bravocompanymfg.com.
	You can discover more about their products, special offers, upcoming news.
	That's bravocompanymfg.com.
	If you need more convincing, go check out more information about them at youtube.com slash bravocompanyusa.
	Again, it's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	They're wonderful folks.
	I mean, the people who founded it are actual veterans, and they're ensuring that you stay safe.
	It's a pretty great company.
	Go check it out.
	BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	Okay, I want to give you an update on this bomb situation in just one second.
	First, you're going to have to go subscribe at DailyWare.com.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get the rest of this show live, the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, the rest of Michael Knowles' awful show live.
	You get all of those.
	Well, all of those great things in one terrible thing.
	You can get all of them for $9.99 a month.
	And when you spend $99 a year, you also get this.
	The greatest of all beverage vessels.
	Behold.
	Behold its glory.
	Feast your eyes upon it.
	The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
	Making lives better every day.
	Raising your level of spirituality and virtue one sip at a time.
	That's what the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler does.
	Go check it out right now.
	Also, when you subscribe over at YouTube or iTunes, you get to see our Sunday special because it arrives In your feed, every single Sunday.
	And this week's star is Scott Adams.
	You know Scott Adams, he's the Dilbert guy, but he also happens to be the great Trump decoder.
	And we talked with him for a full hour, for the full hour.
	So here's what it sounds like.
	Hi, I'm Scott Adams.
	You can see me on The Ben Shapiro Show, Sunday special, where I'll be talking about my book, Win Bigly, and persuasion, and President Trump, and are we in a simulation?
	All kinds of fun stuff.
	It did get pretty wild, so you're going to want to listen to that one.
	Go check it out right now.
	We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay, so the update with regard to these bombs, that there was a return address that was put on the labels to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office.
	That doesn't mean that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is actually sending these bombs.
	It means that somebody is probably trolling by doing exactly that.
	Okay, so I want to talk a little bit more about where we are as a society and how we cure all of this.
	Again, we need to start with the premise that the people that we are talking about generally do not have harm in mind.
	That their goal is not to destroy us in any way.
	If we figure that, then we can have normal elections.
	Yes, fraught, heated elections.
	But we're not going to be trying to kill each other.
	Because we can assume that most people in the United States grew up with the same value system we did.
	And they did.
	I mean, the reality is that we all grew up in the same milieu.
	Our values are not all that different.
	Even the most right-wing members of the United States and the most left-wing members of the United States theoretically agree on certain basic values, like freedom of speech and treating each other compassionately and decently.
	Why?
	Because we all grew up in the same society.
	When you grew up in the same society, you share a certain level of baseline values.
	Now, I think that's splitting.
	I think that's one of the problems with the country.
	But one of the ways that that split is exacerbated is by simply assuming that political disagreement reflects underlying character differences.
	Now, speaking of political disagreement and, you know, the polarization of our politics, that social fabric, those common values, as I say, are being split.
	And you're seeing it in some of these Democratic campaigns.
	One of those campaigns is from Stacey Adams.
	She's the Georgia gubernatorial candidate for the Democrats.
	And she was caught on tape talking about free markets.
	Here's what she had to say.
	And I am sick and tired of hearing about the free market being the solution to this problem.
	Because I've never seen the free market right of prescription in rural Georgia.
	Stacey Abrams, if you can't hear her, she's saying that the free market has never solved any problems in the medical field, which is obviously untrue.
	These are baseline root issues in American politics.
	Do I think Stacey Abrams is therefore lacking in character?
	No, I don't.
	I think she's just wrong.
	I think she's wrong and she doesn't know enough about economics and she's misinterpreting the economics that she does know.
	But is she a bad person?
	I don't know Stacey Abrams.
	Probably not.
	Even though, you know, there's tape of her, I believe, now burning a flag back in college.
	So I guess we're now ripping directly from scripts written by Aaron Sorkin.
	Like, we're actually just gonna do the American president all over again with Stacey Abrams.
	I've noticed this weird trend in the news the last couple of days.
	Like, there was a Luftwaffen plane that landed on the 101 North.
	Okay, like, not that far from where we filmed this.
	And all I can say is thank God for the RAF.
	Because the Royal Air Force really took care of business, making sure the Luftwaffe— So the man in the high castle is coming true.
	That's exciting.
	And apparently Stacey Abrams is directly from the American president.
	And then there was a story that I saw today about a guy who looks exactly like David Schwimmer robbing a liquor store and robbing it of beer.
	So Ross from Friends has been cut loose.
	And President Trump is the president.
	Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
	Scott Adams is the guy who says we may be living in a simulation.
	I'm starting to maybe believe that we are just living inside a weird, weird, weird script.
	But in any case, the divisions that are growing in the country, those need to be rectified, but they cannot be rectified in any serious way unless we stop attributing the worst available motives to everybody.
	And that holds true even with regard to some of these stupidities like the worship for Beto O'Rourke, which is foolish, but I don't think it's coming from a place of People who are bad, I think, is just coming from a place of people who fall in love with politicians in the dumbest possible way.
	Okay.
	Now, speaking of attributing bad motives, let's talk about the latest on the caravan.
	So, the illegal immigrant caravan continues to move up through Mexico.
	They're about a thousand miles from the border right now, probably less.
	There are apparently 10,000 people who are walking toward the border.
	The folks who are in that caravan, as I've said, I think many of them are looking for a better life.
	They're looking to come into the United States.
	That doesn't mean that the United States has to admit all of those people or any of those people.
	The United States gets to pick and choose who we decide to admit to the country.
	And yet this is cast as a great moral issue.
	If you believe that America should secure its border, this means that you are racist and nasty and bigoted and terrible.
	And if you believe that people should be admitted to the country because they need a better place to live, then this is because you don't care about America's interests.
	The truth is that people who believe in free flow of immigration, even free flow of illegal immigration, generally they believe that that makes the country better because on a moral level we have to uphold certain charitable instincts.
	I disagree with that assessment, but that's where that's coming from.
	And for people who say we have to secure our border, that is also coming from a good place.
	It's coming from the idea that any country that wishes to preserve its strength so that it can help other people has to have limits on who gets to enter the country.
	So again, there's a way to explain this debate in which we examine everybody's best motives.
	It's hard to do that in a polarized political environment.
	It's hard to do that in a polarized political environment.
	So, President Trump, he had said about this illegal immigrant caravan that there were random Middle Easterners in the middle of it and criminals in the middle of it.
	It turns out there may be criminals.
	I'd be shocked if there are not criminals in the middle of it.
	People have been convicted of crimes and deported who are now trying to come back in.
	There's no evidence of random Middle Easterners and he was asked about it.
	Here was his statement in response.
	- They intercepted, they could very well be. - But there's no proof. - There's no proof of anything.
	There's no proof of anything.
	But they could very well be. - Hey, there could very well be is not a good answer to an accusation that you made about people who are trying to come into the United States.
	Again, that is a political tactic by the president in order to get people to talk about the incipient criminality of the folks who are in that march.
	But it's another way of polarizing politics.
	This is why I've said both right and left are responsible for what's happening right now in the country.
	I'm not going to pretend that this exists only on one side for my own political purposes.
	I just don't think that's honest.
	At the same time, you see the response to that, which is Jorge Ramos, who says, there are no Middle Easterners in this caravan.
	And Tucker Carlson, who's interviewing him, is like, well, there are still criminals in that caravan.
	And Jorge Ramos says, right, but there are no Middle Easterners.
	It's like, well, now you're deliberately missing the point in order to castigate the other side as racist.
	I spent two days with these refugees, and I have not seen a single person from the Middle East.
	That's a lie.
	And I think, Tucker, you have to tell the truth to your audience, and you don't have, you have to make sure that people are not lying about this caravan, because the people from the Middle East are not part of this caravan.
	Okay, but what are you, let me just, let me just say.
	Stupidity on one side drives stupidity on the other.
	When the president says they're Middle Easterners without evidence who are part of the caravan, and the left says, well, they're no Middle Easterners, that means the caravan's good.
	This is not the central argument in any way, shape or form, obviously.
	The central argument about the caravan is whether the United States ought to have borders that are protected or whether the United States is obligated by morality and decency and international law to let people freely cross the border.
	Making that latter case is Tom Perez, who's the head of the DNC.
	And this gets down to the root of the issue.
	And this is where Americans really should be deciding the issue, not on the basis of stupidities about Middle Easterners and a caravan, but on the basis of what are the values we wish to uphold as a country and how do we protect the country best.
	Here's Tom Perez giving the wrong answer to Jake Tapper on CNN.
	We are a nation of laws and the laws that are on the books deal with issues of refugee and asylum status.
	And those are the laws that have always applied.
	It's a humanitarian issue of significance.
	And our laws require that people be treated with dignity and given that process.
	Okay, well, they are given that process.
	They can go to any checkpoint that they wish to go to and they can apply for asylum in the United States.
	Again, the implication by Tom Perez here a little bit is that folks on the other side don't want to treat people who are trying to cross the border illegally with dignity.
	That is inherently untrue.
	So, in essence, The theme of today's show, and what should be the theme of our politics, is if we want to have serious discussions with folks on the other side, we have to cut out the idea that there are inherently bad, evil folks who are manifesting that bad and that evil in ways designed to destroy the country.
	If we actually believe that, then we are five minutes from civil war.
	If we actually believe that the other side is Hitler, then we are justified in trying to kill Hitler.
	So, all this has to stop.
	All this has to stop.
	And if we don't stop it, then things are going to get a lot worse before they get any better.
	Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	And then we'll do a psalm, a bit of an uplifting psalm.
	So, things I like today.
	I was listening to some of my favorite music last night.
	I've recommended the music of Ray Fun Williams before, one of the great British composers.
	He wrote Probably my favorite piece of music ever, Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis, which I've recommended on the show before.
	He also wrote a Fantasia on Greensleeves that is just fantastic.
	He wrote a beautiful piece for violin called The Lark Ascending.
	It's a difficult piece.
	I mean, I play it a little bit, but it's a difficult piece.
	This is a recording with Iona Brown on violin, with Neville Mariner and the Academy of St.
	Martin in the field.
	It's a beautiful piece and very effective.
	It's a beautiful piece and very effective.
	Fiona Brown plays the hell out of the violage.
	She is just terrific.
	So, go check out this recording.
	It's quite beautiful.
	It's on a CD with all of the pieces I just mentioned.
	CD.
	I know.
	It's a thing.
	Colton.
	Colton's CD.
	It used to have music on it.
	It was like a disc, and you put it in a machine.
	It spun really fast, and then it would play music for you.
	It was kind of cool.
	I kind of miss it.
	Although, it used to take up too much room in my house.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	So Thing I Hate No.
	1 goes to the essence of the show today.
	This is a tweet from Bruce Bartlett, who is a member of the political left.
	Here's what he tweeted.
	Praising Hitler to own the cons.
	That's an interesting angle.
	An interesting angle.
	Hitler served honorably in the military.
	Trump didn't.
	Hitler was faithful to his wife.
	Trump cheated on all his wives.
	Hitler wrote a book.
	Trump's were all ghost written.
	Praising Hitler to own the cons.
	That's an interesting angle, an interesting angle.
	First off, Adolf Hitler also killed 6 million people in a genocide and 11 million people total in mass murders, leaving aside the number of people who died overall in World War II.
	So there was that.
	That was kind of a key distinction.
	Also, Hitler had a mustache.
	Um, but I mean, if we're just going to talk about, like, differences, I wouldn't— I love this.
	I love when he says Hitler was faithful to his wife.
	He was married to Eva Braun for 24 hours before they killed themselves.
	So, I mean, this is just also basic ignorance of history.
	He literally married her and then they committed suicide.
	So there was that.
	Also, I love this.
	Hitler wrote a book.
	That book was called Mein Kampf.
	It wasn't a good book.
	There were some problems with that book, bros.
	Trumps were all ghostwritten.
	You know who else had his books ghostwritten for him?
	John F. Kennedy.
	So if you're going to do Hitler wrote a book, Trumps were all ghostwritten.
	Man, oh man.
	Yeah, I'm gonna go with this is kind of crazy.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	So, the Pod Save America bros, who, as I've said before, I think that they do a good job at what they do.
	I think they're wrong about virtually everything, but they're very talented at what they do.
	And the folks over at Crooked Media, they were hosted on Stephen Colbert again.
	I think it's like the fourth or the fifth time they've been on Stephen Colbert's show.
	For all those folks who pretend that late night comedy is not politically influenced or biased, you're insane.
	Okay, I will give you a guess as to how many times, this is not about me, but it is about me.
	Let me, let me hazard a guess.
	How many times have I ever been invited on a late night comedy show?
	Ever.
	The answer is zero.
	I've never ever been invited on any late night comedy show.
	The only comedy show I've ever been invited on was Trevor Noah, and I insisted that if I were going to do an interview with Trevor Noah, it had to be live in front of the audience.
	I was not going to be taped and then cut apart the way they did to Jonah Goldberg when Jonah was on Trevor Noah's show.
	I was not going to do that.
	So, but the Pod Save America bros are on with Stephen Colbert specifically because Colbert is a far leftist and How many times are we gonna do this?
	Alright?
	It doesn't matter what the early votes look like, it doesn't matter what the polls look like, we can lose everything!
	We lost everything two years ago, we can lose everything again!
	basically doing get out the vote for Democrats.
	How many times are we going to do this?
	All right.
	It doesn't matter what the early votes look like.
	It doesn't matter what the polls look like.
	We can lose everything.
	We lost everything two years ago.
	We can lose everything again.
	Oh, my God.
	OK, and quick correction.
	I was on Bill Maher, so good for Bill Maher.
	Good for Bill Maher.
	That was the one example of a show I was actually invited on and that I went on because it was live.
	But Stephen Colbert is not on pay cable.
	Stephen Colbert is nightly.
	So, the bias in the media is a very, very real thing.
	Okay, time for a quick psalm.
	So after all of that negativity, it's time for a little bit of uplift.
	So, Psalm 10.
	We've been going through a psalm a week, more or less.
	We've been missing some weeks.
	But one of the things that I love about the psalms, and the reason that they carry over time, the reason that they've been crucial to religious people's understanding of God for thousands of years, is because the psalms don't sugarcoat things.
	They really don't.
	Now, for all the people who believe that religious people think that everything is hunky-dory, that we're living in this kind of fantasy world where everything is great and nothing bad ever happens, all you have to do is read the anguish that is implicit in the Psalms, and you know that King David and King Solomon and all the folks who are writing the Psalms, that these Psalms are deeply in tune with It's a pretty harsh indictment of God, right?
	And we all feel like that.
	Religious people feel like that.
	That is the challenge of faith.
	you stand far off?
	Why do you hide yourselves in times of trouble?
	It's a pretty harsh indictment of God, right?
	Where are you when things are rough?
	And we all feel like that.
	Religious people feel like that.
	That is the challenge of faith.
	Again, I hate this kind of Ned Flanders approach by the secular left to religion that everybody who's religious is actually just, everything's hunky-dory, That's not how religious people feel about things at all.
	This is why it's so weird to folks who are religious when non-religious people say to them, well, you know, how can there be a God when bad things happen in the world?
	It's like, oh, you're the first person who thought of the question of theodicy.
	You're the first person in history who thought of that question.
	Now that you've said that bad things happen to children, I guess you've defeated me.
	This is legitimately an argument made by people who are secular all the time.
	Well, you know, if God is good, then why do bad things happen?
	I don't know.
	We have thousands of years of theology discussing this exact issue, and the final answer is basically that you aren't God.
	That's basically the answer.
	And that's not always a comforting answer.
	But it is a true answer, and it's a reality-based answer.
	Psalm 10 says, in his arrogance, the wicked man hunts down the weak who are caught in the schemes he devises.
	He boasts about the cravings of his heart.
	He blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.
	In his pride, the wicked man does not seek him.
	In all his thoughts, there is no room for God.
	It's interesting how wicked folks are characterized not just as people who do other people harm, you know, hunting down the weak, but also they're characterized as folks who don't spend any time thinking about God.
	And I think those two things are related.
	It doesn't mean every atheist person is bad, not by a long shot.
	I think I know a lot of wonderful atheist moral folks.
	Doesn't mean every religious person is good.
	A lot of horrible, horrible religious people.
	But it does mean that people...
	People who genuinely are wicked, including religious people, spend very little time thinking about higher morality or what is demanded of them by their God.
	Instead, they're spending a lot of time thinking about what they want.
	His ways are always prosperous.
	Your laws are rejected by him.
	He sneers at all his enemies.
	He says to himself, nothing will ever shake me.
	He swears no one will ever do me harm.
	This is the wicked man.
	Obviously, King David led a pretty rough life, right?
	I mean, this is a guy who was being chased from place to place by King Saul.
	He was constantly in threat of murder.
	His kingdom broke down over succession disputes between his own children, several of whom died in the process of him maintaining his kingdom.
	When you talk to a religious person, if you're secular, even if you're not religious, you should recognize that religious people do think about the serious problems of life on a daily basis.
	Their answer may be different than yours.
	I think it's a more inspiring answer than the secular answer.
	And I think it's also a truer answer than the secular answer.
	The secular answer is basically, bleep happens.
	The religious answer is, bleep happens, but that's because God is in charge.
	And we don't understand God.
	And I think that's a fairer answer to the question than simply random chance.
	Okay, we will be back here tomorrow.
	With all of the latest, I'm Ben Shapiro, 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 Carmina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

▲