Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 20, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:03

Hillary’s Email Revenge | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 664

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ivanka Trump comes under fire for use of a private email address.
	Hollywood reminds you they are here to hate conservatives.
	And the New York Times tries to prep you for Thanksgiving dinner with your uncle.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Oh, man, lots of news breaking today.
	I mean, just because it's Thanksgiving week doesn't mean the news stops.
	And we have all of it for you right here.
	We're going to break it all down for you here today.
	But we begin today with you making your business better.
	So you may have noticed that your business is not performing as well as you want it to.
	You know, we here at The Daily Wire, we have an optimally performing business.
	But one of the reasons our business performs optimally is because we use ZipRecruiter.
	ZipRecruiter allows you to find the best employees for your job.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire is the smart way to go and find those candidates.
	Unlike other job sites, ZipRecruiter doesn't wait for candidates to find you.
	Instead, ZipRecruiter finds them for you.
	Its powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes, identifies people with the right skills, education, and experience for your job, and actively invites them to apply, so you get qualified candidates fast.
	There's no more sorting through the wrong resumes, no more waiting for the right candidates to apply.
	It's no wonder ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the United States.
	Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	That's ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Make sure your business is running at top notch at ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
	OK, so we begin today.
	With Nate Silver saying that the Daily Wire should basically be shut off Facebook.
	You know, there's a big story today that's really kind of fascinating.
	This story is that all of the tech stocks have been dying.
	So according to the Wall Street Journal this morning, stocks have dropped dramatically as tech shares have extended their declines.
	All of the gains of the last year have basically gone out the window.
	U.S.
	stocks tumbled Tuesday, putting major U.S.
	index indices At risk of closing below their October lows, according to the Wall Street Journal, and wiping out yearly gains.
	What started as a technology company sell-off bled into other corners of the market as investors dumped shares of everything from retailers to oil and gas companies in favor of relatively safe assets like bonds and reliable dividend payers like utility companies.
	The result?
	Some traders who stepped into scoop-up shares in late October hoping for a quick rebound are now in danger of losing those potential profits and more.
	This puts the stock market in a tenuous position, several of those people say.
	Justin Wiggs, who's Managing Director in Equity Trading at Stifle Nicholas, says the buy-the-dippers are getting concerned, meaning that When the stock market goes down, you tend to buy more.
	That's what I do.
	According to his calculations, as of this morning, about 16% of S&P 500 companies are now below their October lows.
	Those companies range from tech giants to health care companies to energy firms.
	Now it's just let's sell everything.
	Well, there are a couple of reasons that this is happening.
	One is that the Chinese tariffs are beginning to hit U.S.
	industry.
	America's soybean exports, which largely went to China, have now dropped by nearly 100% thanks to the tariff battle that President Trump is having with the Chinese.
	Whether you think that's well-founded or not, it's not particularly great for the United States economy.
	It's also happening because Democrats just took over Congress.
	And a lot of businesses see regulations on the way, or at least regulatory fights.
	The friendly business climate that has been created by the Trump administration and a Republican Congress could be stymied by a bunch of Democrats who actually want to investigate and regulate businesses up the wazoo.
	Tech stocks, by the way, have dropped.
	One of the reasons tech stocks have dropped, and nobody really wants to talk about this in the left-wing media, Is because a lot of the left-wing media is focused like laser beams on shutting down tech companies for not doing enough to let Hillary Clinton win the election.
	I really mean this.
	There's a tweet that went out.
	Here's an example.
	There's a tweet that went out today from Kevin Roos.
	Kevin Roos is the New York Times tech writer.
	And here's what he tweeted.
	He tweeted, Today's top stories on Facebook are from 1.
	Ben Shapiro, 2.
	Ben Shapiro, 3.
	Daily Caller, 4.
	9GAG, 5.
	TMZ, 7.
	Franklin Graham, 8.
	Fox News, 10.
	Fox News.
	So the idea here is too many conservative sites are getting too much traffic.
	It is bad that my Facebook page is driving enormous traffic.
	It is just terrible that top stories in terms of traffic from Facebook are coming from me.
	This prompted Nate Silver, who is the And the question is, stop trying to what?
	Shut down and censor conservative pages?
	has even stopped trying.
	That is what Nate Silver tweeted out.
	It's like Facebook has stopped trying because the top two traffic stories came courtesy of my Facebook page.
	And the question is, stop trying to what?
	Shut down and censor conservative pages?
	Prevent conservative dissemination of information?
	Ever since Hillary Clinton lost, the left has been in an uproar about how to shut down Facebook, about how to make it a wholly owned and used subsidiary controlled by the faculties of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media.
	This has been their chief focus.
	And this has been true since Dianne Feinstein was calling top members of social media companies before her and saying, if you don't get control of your companies, we're going to regulate you.
	You think maybe this might scare investors in tech companies?
	You might see that there have been a bunch of issues hitting tech companies.
	One of them is the privacy issue.
	Obviously, people believe that their private information is being disseminated by these tech companies or grabbed and used by these tech companies.
	But that was always true.
	The real change is that since election 2016, a lot of members of the left wing have suggested that companies like Facebook should be controlled by people who are more into shutting down the conservative distribution platforms for information.
	In other words, they will only leave Facebook unregulated if Facebook pledges to do their bidding.
	Dianne Feinstein will only leave Facebook alone if Facebook pledges to shut down conservative websites if they pledge to destroy conservative traffic base.
	Now, the reality is that Facebook does not discriminate in favor of conservatives, of course, and there are those of us on the right who have said that Facebook should not be regulated even when they were destroying conservative traffic in early 2017 with an algorithm shift, as we talked about at the time.
	But the left cannot stand that Hillary Clinton lost, and so now they're going to try to control every business that allows them to control the means of information consumption.
	This is their new priority.
	That may be having an effect on the stock market.
	People fear Democrats in control of the levers of government when it comes to the economy, because they know that Democrats in control of the levers of the economy are going to try to control business from the top down, whether you're talking pharmaceutical companies, whether you're talking drug companies, whether you're talking The banking industry, whether you are talking about tech companies, all of these companies are deeply fearful of democratic governance.
	You know the reason that the economy started to recover under Barack Obama?
	It started to recover under Barack Obama because all these companies knew that there was a Republican Congress in charge.
	It means something when Democrats grab control of the levers of power.
	And the fact that they are overtly, people like Nate Silver are overtly calling basically for censorship of conservative outlets on Facebook is just more evidence that the media are fully invested in the idea that they have to twist the media of social media.
	They have to twist those distribution systems in order so that they can control those from above.
	It's really quite incredible.
	Now, one of the reasons they want to control those methods of distribution from above is that they can control the politics of the country, obviously.
	And that means that they can push information that is not supremely important.
	So, speaking of information that is not supremely, supremely important today, and then we'll contrast this with a piece of very important information today.
	The Huffington Post is very upset because Ivanka Trump used a personal account to send hundreds of emails last year related to government business, according to sources who spoke with the Washington Post.
	Well, that's not good.
	You shouldn't be using your personal email for government business.
	But this, of course, led people like Nate Silver, who wants Facebook to shut down distribution systems for conservatives.
	Nate Silver tweeted this out about Ivanka Trump.
	He says, If you're one of those news organizations that treated Clinton's private emails like they were a national emergency, the solution isn't to treat Ivanka's private emails like they're also a national emergency.
	Rather, it's to acknowledge that you kind of screwed up on Clinton.
	Well, no.
	It's to recognize that there is a slight difference between Clinton's private emails, from what we know, and Ivanka's private emails.
	Now, is it good that anybody in government is using a private email address to do business?
	No.
	But it is also true that Colin Powell did this.
	It is true that John Kerry did this.
	It is true that Virtually every public official that I know of uses a private email address to do business from time to time.
	The question is whether they are deliberately hiding that from government discovery and whether they set up a private server, which is what Hillary Clinton did.
	She didn't set up an email address at Gmail, which would have made her email subject to discovery.
	She set up a private server in her house to allow all information to pass directly to her, and then it could be contained in that private server, which she could then bleach, and then drill, and then hammer.
	Not quite the same thing.
	Also, we don't know if Ivanka Trump was actually looking at classified information in these emails, or whether it was unclassified government business.
	Hillary Clinton, we know for a fact, was passing classified information via a private email on a private server that was open to hack by foreign governments.
	This is not the same kind of story at all.
	And yet the media are treating it as though this is just the hypocrisy of the Republicans.
	It's just the hypocrisy of the Republ- Again, should Ivanka Trump be using a private email address for her business?
	No, of course she shouldn't.
	But until we know what those emails were and whether they were classified, until we have any evidence that she set up a private server and then poured bleach all over it, she's bleach bit, And then drilled it?
	And then hammered it?
	Unless we know that, this is not the same thing in any way.
	Nonetheless, people on the left are going crazy over this.
	It just shows that Ivanka is super duper duper corrupt.
	And this is what they want you to be paying attention to.
	They want you to be paying attention to Ivanka Trump's emails that are not in any way, so far as we know, like Hillary Clinton's emails.
	This is what they want you to pay attention to.
	What they don't want you to pay attention to is a judicial ruling that violates virtually every basic precept of government in the Constitution.
	So here is the latest federal judicial ruling.
	The New York Times reports, Miriam Jordan reporting, First of all, I do love that now the media are finally acknowledging there's a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.
	Five minutes ago, they were suggesting that it wasn't a threat at all.
	a temporary setback to the president's attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.
	First of all, I do love that now the media are finally acknowledging there's a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.
	Five minutes ago, they were suggesting that it wasn't a threat at all.
	There is nobody crossing the border illegally.
	Judge John Tiger of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally.
	The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.
	First of all, it should not be the case that a district court anywhere in the country can shut down the federal government full-scale across the country.
	That's absurd.
	There are hundreds of U.S.
	District Court judges across the United States.
	The idea that any one of them can issue a temporary restraining order against the federal government, applied nationally, is just insane.
	The judge wrote, whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.
	There's only one problem here.
	Where did Congress expressly forbid him from saying that if you enter the country illegally, we are not going to process your asylum claims the same way that we would process your asylum claims if you enter the country legally?
	I'm not aware of the law that says that.
	I'll talk about this more in just one second.
	This is a big story because, again, this is the court stepping into areas where they have no business.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about your investment strategy.
	So as we've been saying, the stock market is really volatile.
	The stock market is going down right now.
	But now is a good time for you to learn how to use the stock market because you can indeed make money in the stock market.
	How should you do that if you don't know that much about investing?
	You should check out Robinhood.
	It's an investing app that lets you buy and sell stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptos, all commission-free.
	They strive to make financial services work for everyone, not just the wealthy.
	It's a non-intimidating way for stock market newcomers to invest for the first time with true confidence.
	They have a simple, intuitive, clear design with data presented in an easy-to-digest way.
	Some of my folks at the office here have been using Robinhood, and they've shown me how it works.
	It really is clear.
	It really is intuitive.
	And it's super helpful if you really don't know anything about trading in the stock market.
	It's a great way to learn by doing.
	Right now, other brokerages charge up to $10 for trades, but Robinhood doesn't charge commission fees.
	You trade the stocks and you keep all of your profits.
	They have easy-to-understand charts.
	They have market data.
	You can place a trade in just four taps on your smartphone.
	It is super easy.
	They have curated collections, like 100 Most Popular, sectors like entertainment and social media.
	Curated categories like female CEOs, if that's something you're into.
	And again, you learn by doing.
	Robinhood right now is giving my listeners a free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint to help you build your portfolio.
	Sign up at Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
	That's Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
	Again, Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
	Learn to trade in the stock market by using the best app out there.
	That is Robinhood, the investing app that lets you Do what you need to do in the stock market and learn while doing it.
	Shapiro.Robinhood.com to get that free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint.
	Again, Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
	Okay, so this judge says that the administration is unable, under the law, to prevent illegal immigrants, people who are jumping the border, from applying for asylum.
	So, this of course undercuts the entire legal regime in the United States.
	And the entire idea here is to direct people toward legal means of applying for asylum.
	And one legal mean for applying for asylum is to walk up to the border to a border patrol station and simply ask for asylum.
	It is not legal, however, to jump the fence and then claim asylum.
	That is not legal in the United States.
	The judge's ruling went according to what the ACLU wanted.
	Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far left advocacy group in the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.
	But that is not, in fact, an asylum ban.
	The Trump administration signaled they would continue to defend the policy as it moved through the courts.
	Katie Waldman is the spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security.
	She said, And they point out the president has brought authority to stop the entrance of migrants into the country, which is true if you look at the actual black letter law.
	They say it is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire federal government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled.
	We look forward to continuing to defend the executive branch's legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.
	Stephen Yale Lauer is an immigration scholar at Cornell.
	He says presidents indeed have broad discretion on immigration matters, but the bottom line is that the courts have now introduced conditions that don't actually exist in the law.
	The government's lawyers say the president has sought to halt a dangerous and illegal practice and regain control of the borders because Trump administration officials defended the regulatory change.
	They argued the president was responding to a surge ...in migrants seeking asylum based on frivolous claims, which ultimately led their cases to be denied by an immigration judge.
	The migrants then ignore orders to leave and remain unlawfully in the country.
	If Trump can't actually just ignore this court ruling and enforce the law, then he is not doing his job as president.
	The courts obviously are wildly overreaching their discretion under the law.
	It's fully crazy.
	So how much of the media are going to cover this judge's ruling today in any way that reflects the state of the law?
	The answer is not much.
	How much will they cover Ivanka's emails, which are not nearly the issue that they are making it out to be?
	I promise you that the coverage will be blanket.
	The coverage will be enormous.
	Okay, in just one second, I want to get to proof that the that the media are as biased as you think they are.
	It's pretty astonishing.
	And this is with regard to Thanksgiving dinner.
	So Thanksgiving is coming up.
	You're going to have some relative you disagree with.
	And that relative undoubtedly will bring up politics.
	Whenever we have Thanksgiving at my house, a lot of my relatives happen to be on the left.
	I rarely bring up politics at the table.
	I don't really enjoy arguing with my relatives because they're my relatives.
	What's the point of it?
	But invariably, somebody brings up politics and then we have a discussion that usually ends with us saying, let's stop it and go watch football.
	Because that's pretty much the only way that you can end awkward discussions.
	Well now, the New York Times has put out a piece called, How to Have a Conversation with Your Angry Uncle Over Thanksgiving.
	This piece is astonishing.
	Why is it astonishing?
	It's astonishing for what it shows about the bias of the New York Times.
	So they basically put together a couple of model conversations in this piece at the New York Times.
	Model conversation number one is you arguing with your conservative uncle.
	Model conversation number two is you arguing with your leftist uncle.
	Okay, so what's amazing is the approach that the New York Times gives to the leftist uncle versus the approach that it gives to the conservative uncle.
	So the conservative uncle is a full-on moron.
	The leftist uncle is, in fact, a well-stated, well-reasoned, blue-state liberal.
	And so I'll give you an example.
	So I went through this last night because I was curious to see what the New York Times recommended in terms of how you should argue with your uncle at Thanksgiving.
	And it just shows you where the New York Times stands on this sort of stuff.
	This piece is written by Karen Tamirius, who's a former psychiatrist and the founder of Smart Politics.
	So they have a couple of bots.
	You can either argue with your angry uncle bot who is conservative, or you can argue with your liberal angry uncle bot.
	So here is what the conservative uncle bot says.
	The conservative uncle, according to the New York Times, says Trump has been great for America.
	Just look at the economy.
	It's booming.
	And then it gives you a series of answers that you can possibly give, including Trump's been good for the rich, or because you're on the left, right?
	This is you being on the left, saying Trump's been good for the rich, but not for everybody else.
	Or you saying, you know, how has the economy been for you?
	Now, here's the part where it gets really funny.
	If you say, so it recommends, the recommendation, if you are a liberal arguing with your conservative uncle who says Trump's been good for the economy, is that you're supposed to say, so how are you doing financially?
	Now listen to how the New York Times rigs this conversation.
	Your conservative uncle is supposed to answer, how am I doing?
	Not that great actually, but things would have been worse under Hillary.
	Okay, first of all, the Trump economy has been very good across the board.
	We've seen average wage gains for the first time in years under President Trump.
	So the New York Times is rigging the conversation, so your conservative uncle is a moron who has been doing poorly under the Trump economy, but is going to argue that Hillary would have been worse.
	It's really amazing.
	And then you're supposed to say, what are your biggest economic hurdles right now?
	And then your uncle is supposed to say, my biggest hurdle is, well, no matter how hard I work, I can't get ahead.
	I'm living paycheck to paycheck.
	Look how the New York Times is rigging your conservative uncle, right?
	Your conservative uncle loves Trump, but is struggling to get ahead, is living paycheck to paycheck, and is struggling in the best economy in modern history.
	That's how they're rigging the conversation.
	So of course, if you're a liberal, you're going to win that conversation.
	Of course!
	It's amazing, right?
	This is their model conversation.
	And then you're supposed to say, so you feel pretty insecure money-wise, despite how hard you're working.
	And then your conservative uncle is supposed to say, yeah, I do feel insecure money-wise, and I don't know how long I can keep up.
	So the New York Times has rigged it so that if you're a liberal discussing with your conservative uncle, then it's very easy because your conservative uncle's a moron who has never made a dollar in his life and is suffering under the Trump economy, despite the fact that the economy is booming.
	Now, flip the script, and this is how the New York Times recommends that you argue with your conservative uncle.
	Or how you argue with your liberal uncle.
	Here's how the New York Times recommends you argue with your liberal uncle.
	So your liberal uncle says, we need Medicare for all.
	Healthcare is a human right.
	And you are now supposed to say, OK, can you tell me more about that?
	And then your uncle say, your uncle is supposed to say, this is your liberal uncle, say more about it.
	Sure.
	No human being should go without health care just because they can't afford it.
	And then you're supposed to say, well, how do you think we should fix this issue?
	And your liberal uncle, being a brilliant, a brilliant, well-reasoned professor, is supposed to say, how to fix it?
	Many people can't even afford medications or primary care.
	If we expand Medicare to include everyone, those people can get the help that they need.
	And then you're supposed to say, so you think the government has a responsibility to make sure every person has basic healthcare, is that right?
	And then your uncle says, a right to basic healthcare?
	Yes, it's a right.
	Everyday people die needlessly in this country because they can't pay for medical treatment.
	And then you're supposed to say, I agree that no one should have to go without medical care because they can't afford it.
	So in other words, if you're a conservative, arguing with your liberal uncle on Thanksgiving, you're supposed to agree with him.
	Okay, if you are a liberal arguing with your conservative uncle, you're supposed to point out to him that he's a poor moron.
	This is how the New York Times says that you should argue with your uncle on Thanksgiving.
	No, no, there's no media bias at all.
	None.
	None.
	No media bias.
	It's just astonishing.
	I love it so much.
	Ah, the New York Times.
	Doing yeoman's work to prove just how ridiculous they are every single day.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile, I want to get to Hollywood, which is about to launch a brand new movie that we're all very excited about.
	But first, let's talk about your impending death.
	So, it's always possible.
	You're gonna be there on Thanksgiving.
	You're chewing on a piece of turkey.
	And boom, it gets caught in your throat, and you're sitting there, and as your life passes before your eyes, you think, shouldn't I have gotten life insurance?
	Wouldn't that have been a smart move?
	Well, before Thanksgiving, now would be a very good time to get life insurance, because having life insurance is a good feeling.
	It means that you feel safe and secure, if you should choke to death on that piece of turkey.
	Your family will still be taken care of, and they won't have to cart you off to a pauper's grave.
	Go check out PolicyGenius.
	It's the easy way to get life insurance online.
	In just two minutes, you can compare quotes from the top insurers to find the best policy for you.
	And when you compare quotes, you save money.
	It's that simple.
	PolicyGenius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance.
	They've placed over $20 billion in coverage.
	And they don't just make life insurance easy.
	They also compare disability insurance and auto insurance and home insurance.
	If you care about it, they can cover it.
	So, if you've been avoiding getting life insurance because it's difficult or confusing, give PolicyGenius a try.
	Just go to PolicyGenius.com, get your quotes, apply in minutes.
	You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
	PolicyGenius is indeed the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	No reason for you to plot without making sure your family is taken care of.
	That's irresponsible.
	Instead, go to PolicyGenius.com First of all, when I say Oscar bait, you should immediately run for the nearest doors, because it means that it's going to suck.
	Meanwhile, Hollywood is getting ready to launch a brand new film.
	It was on the cover of The Hollywood Reporter.
	It's an Oscar bait film.
	Ooh, who's excited?
	First of all, when I say Oscar bait, you should immediately run for the nearest doors because it means that it's going to suck.
	Whenever Hollywood makes a movie that is so-called Oscar bait, It is basically just going to be a left-wing, claptrap version of a mediocre story, like The Shape of Water, which was just awful.
	But there's a new movie that is coming out, according to The Hollywood Reporter, and this new movie is called Vice.
	Ooh, what's it about?
	Well, what it is about, glad you asked, what it is about is Vice President Dick Cheney Did we need another movie about Dick Cheney?
	Did we need a movie about Vice President Cheney?
	Of course not.
	This, in fact, is just the latest attempt to go after the Bush administration.
	But there's something telling about this.
	So, again, this is not the first attempt to get the Bush administration.
	There was a movie called W with Josh Brolin, which failed dramatically at the box office, had like a $24 million budget without publicity and advertising, without P&A.
	It lost money at the box office.
	There's another box office bomb called Truth with Robert Redford about Dan Rather's attempt to take down George W. Bush with a fake letter about military service.
	That was a bomb.
	There was a movie called You're Welcome America, which is a Broadway play starring Will Ferrell, where Will Ferrell basically played George W. Bush as stupid Jeb Bush.
	None of these films actually did any business.
	But that is not stopping Adam McKay, who's the creator of HBO's Succession, and he also did the big short, from taking on W and Vice President Cheney.
	So what exactly is driving this?
	Bush left office 10 years ago, last I checked my calendar.
	Why are we still doing movies about George W. Bush when the only movies anyone has ever made about Barack Obama are about how he kissed his then-girlfriend Michelle Obama and it tasted like chocolate?
	Which was an actual An actual movie on Netflix?
	Why are we still doing Bush?
	Well, because Adam McKay hates Bush.
	He says that he went to a victory party for John Kerry in 2004, and everyone you could imagine was there.
	Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman, Will Ferrell.
	Once again, we're like, oh, they're going to lose.
	There's no way you'd re-elect these guys after the disaster we just had.
	I remember Frank Rich was on the phone, and he's like, it's over.
	And within two minutes, the entire party had cleared out.
	This movie is going to cost $60 million.
	It's a $60 million budget for a movie about Vice President Cheney, in which Christian Bale puts on 45 pounds and plays Cheney as a Machiavellian devil who wants to send American troops into harm's way to maybe enrich Halliburton or something.
	The cast is huge.
	It includes Sam Rockwell as W, and Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld, and Tyler Perry as Colin Powell.
	According to McKay, Cheney was far more powerful than W because W was stupid.
	But here's the punchline.
	Here's what McKay says.
	He says, I would choose Donald Trump over Bush and Cheney.
	Donald Trump has no belief system.
	So I would take the hyenas, the random wild animals running through the White House over Cheney any day of the week.
	Now, the reason that I point all of this out is because it just demonstrates that all of the lies that the left tells about why they don't like President Trump, they are just that.
	They are lies.
	The left doesn't like President Trump because President Trump is not a leftist.
	It is that simple.
	They hated George W. Bush.
	They hate Donald Trump.
	In fact, as McKay says, he hates George W. Bush more than he hates Trump.
	Not because George W. Bush was less classy than Trump or something, but because George W. Bush was more ideologically conservative than Trump.
	The left hates conservatives.
	The Hollywood left despises conservatives.
	Not because they are classless, and not because they say things on Twitter that offend, and not because they say weird things in public at press conferences.
	No, the left hates Donald Trump for the same reason that they hate George W. Bush.
	He is not a left-winger.
	And, in fact, many of them hate George W. Bush more than they hated Trump because they think that Bush was more right-wing, which, by the way, in terms of governance, is not even true.
	Trump has governed significantly more conservative than President Bush ever did.
	But this demonstrates that so much of leftist thought is based on just scorn, smearing, scathing scorn against people who are conservative in policy.
	It has nothing to do with the personality of the Commander-in-Chief.
	So when you hear people on the left say, you know, Donald Trump has really robbed the Oval Office, really robbed the Oval Office of its dignity, Understand, this is not why they dislike President Trump.
	They dislike President Trump because President Trump does not agree with them on politics.
	It's the same reason that they hate President Bush.
	They hated President Bush because Bush did not agree with them on politics.
	Now, what this has led the right to do is nominate and elevate somebody like President Trump.
	Why?
	Because President Trump is fighting a cultural battle with these people.
	Hollywood has been sneering at us for decades.
	And President Trump is willing to get down in the mud with these folks and say that and say, you guys are gross.
	Nobody cares what you have to say.
	You're idiots and call them names.
	And that's very appealing to a lot of folks on the right, because if you treat us with with scorn, Then we've been waiting for somebody to punch you guys back.
	And that's what President Trump is.
	So in other words, it is the leftist hatred for President Bush and for Mitt Romney and for John McCain that led to President Trump.
	Because you guys scorned all of the conservatives who you derided as corrupt and evil, Then we said, OK, you know what?
	Obviously, being classy and nice doesn't matter to you people.
	And in fact, we need somebody here who's not going to be classy and nice because you don't deserve classy and nice.
	You're jerks.
	You deserve to be smacked in the head as hard as humanly possible.
	And you know who can do it?
	This guy over here.
	This guy with the hair.
	That guy can do it.
	It is because of people like Adam McKay that Donald Trump is president right now.
	Now, we can't take this too far on the right.
	The problem for conservatives is that Adam McKay and his colleagues are not the target audience.
	It's entertaining for us that Adam McKay and Hollywood get slapped.
	That's great.
	I enjoy it too.
	But there's a bunch of people in the middle of the country who don't really like Adam McKay's take on conservatives and they don't like the slap back from the right.
	And what they actually are looking for is somebody who can punch back from time to time when appropriate.
	But somebody who does bring class to the Oval Office.
	If President Trump can find that, if he can find that happy censor, then he will win re-election.
	If he cannot, then there's a good shot that he won't.
	But it is important to remember what exactly drove the movement behind President Trump.
	What drove the movement behind President Trump was two things.
	The intersectional ideal pushed by the left that said that there's a new coalition of the dispossessed that was growing demographically and was going to put its boot on the throat of conservatives in the middle of the country.
	And then conservatives in the middle of the country said, you know what?
	No, we're not doing this.
	And then it was cultural Hollywood that said, you guys are all rubes, you guys are all morons, or you guys are all corrupt and evil.
	And we said, you know what?
	You're going to do that to us?
	You're going to call us bitter clingers who cling to God and guns and xenophobia?
	We're going to nominate this guy over here who smacks you guys as hard as possible in the face, who grabs you like a member of the Three Stooges by the nose and then pokes you in the eyes with his index and middle fingers.
	That's the guy who we're going to pick.
	And guess what?
	In cultural terms, it's actually working.
	The White House Correspondents' Dinner actually had to revise its entire way of doing business.
	Okay, the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which is supposed to be nerd prom, this is where all the journalists get together with the Hollywood folks, and they go and laugh at Republicans in the name of journalism.
	Well now, they have decided they're not going to host a comedian anymore who just goes there and rips into President Trump and Republicans.
	Instead, they're going to bring in Ron Chernow, who's a biographer of various presidents, and instead of being nerd prom with comedians and Comedy Central figures, it's going to be an actual historical lecture by Ron Chernow, and it'll be about journalism.
	So President Trump somehow fixed the White House Correspondents Association dinner.
	Why?
	Because he said he wasn't going to go.
	He said he wasn't gonna go, and so he ended up fixing the dinner.
	This, of course, made Hollywood crazy.
	Michelle Wolf, who made a name for herself last year at the White House Correspondents Association dinner, earned herself a Netflix series that was cancelled in about 35 seconds because she's garbage at her job.
	She actually tweeted out, the White House Correspondents Association are cowards.
	The media is complicit, and I couldn't be prouder.
	Well, prouder of what?
	Of basically finishing the dinner?
	Of destroying the dinner?
	The media destroyed themselves, and President Trump allowed them to do it.
	These cultural battles are one of the reasons the right loves President Trump.
	There's great benefit to that, there really is.
	There's also a certain amount of risk to it that we on the right would do well to acknowledge, because again, I don't think that it's a case of we have to pick one or the other.
	We can fight the culture war, At the same time that we act classy.
	If we can do that, we'll win.
	If we don't, then we will lose.
	Now, I do want to, in just one second...
	Give you the latest story from the intersectional circuit.
	Plus, we'll talk about the Democrats, who are a little more cohesive than you might think.
	We'll talk about all of that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about your underwear.
	Dudes, the holidays are fast approaching.
	Things are about to get uncomfortable.
	Between the crazy travel schedules and awkward family gatherings, now is not the time to deal with wedgies.
	Thankfully, there is Tommy John, the revolutionary clothing company that is redefining comfort for men and women.
	Tommy John has the most comfortable underwear on the planet.
	They keep you neat.
	Nestled all in one place, they're the perfect gift, especially for dudes who constantly adjust.
	Tommy John underwear sports a no wedgie guarantee, would have been super helpful for me in high school.
	Comfortable stay-put waistbands, a range of fabrics that are luxuriously soft, feather-light, moisture-wicking, breathable, designed to move with you, not against you.
	That means no bunching.
	No writing up.
	So if you're still on the fence wondering if Tommy John would be a memorable gift, think about the fact that you're not going to have to watch your friends and family tugging anymore.
	And with limited edition holiday gifts, there's something for everyone on your list.
	Naughty or nice, go check it out.
	Tommy John.
	Give the gift of fantastic comfort this holiday season with limited edition holiday gifts from Tommy John.
	Plus, you save 20% on your first order at TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	That is TommyJohn.com slash Ben for 20% off your first order.
	Again, TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	Let them know we sent you.
	I'm wearing Tommy John underwear right now.
	They are super comfortable.
	TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	Get 20% off your first order.
	Go check that out right now.
	Okay, I want to talk about the craziest story of the day.
	Plus, ESPN may be getting back to sports, which I'm very excited about.
	I will explain in just a second.
	First, you're going to have to go over and subscribe at dailywire.com.
	$9.99 a month.
	Get a subscription to Daily Wire.
	Plus, today at 5.30 p.m.
	Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
	Pacific, all of your questions will be answered by Daily Wire's own Michael Knowles.
	Why he works here, why you think he has answers, I don't know.
	But if you're one of those people who wants your question answered by Michael Knowles, you're one of those seven people who are members of Knowles' immediate family, then you're going to actually need to pay us.
	Alicia Krauss will also be there to host the show and keep Knowles in line, which, as we all know, is a difficult job.
	Dude just has a weird habit of taking off his clothes in the middle of the office, and it really is quite terrifying.
	This month's episode will stream live on Daily Wire's YouTube and Facebook pages.
	It'll be free for everyone to watch.
	Only subscribers can ask the questions, so if you have a question and you want an answer, then go check it out right now.
	$99 a year gets you all of the aforementioned wonders, plus this, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	Cast your eyes upon this grand piece of vesselware.
	It is just spectacular, and you will enjoy every second of owning it.
	It is an amazing, amazing piece of... It's not quite machinery, but it's a cup.
	It's great.
	It's a cup.
	Go check that out right now.
	Also, go to YouTube and iTunes.
	Subscribe.
	Leave us a review at iTunes.
	It always helps us with our ranking.
	We always appreciate it.
	We have the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So before we get to the craziest story of the day, we're talking here about the fact that Republicans can be sucked in, I think, by Hollywood's hatred for Republicans into fighting this culture war.
	And the culture war is really important.
	I wrote an entire book Co-prime time propaganda about how folks on the left use the cultural means of distribution in order to try and harm conservatives.
	How they see conservatives as lesser human beings.
	And this latest example of this movie that they are spending 60 million dollars on just to make fun of Dick Cheney.
	Like, this is a perfect example of that.
	And this is why people on the right really love President Trump, because he doesn't take crap from people.
	Because when people malign him, when people malign conservatives, he is willing to stand up and say no.
	And that's great.
	It really is good.
	But it is also important to recognize that you have to appeal to the middle of the country and you can't just rely on Democrats making mistakes.
	Right now, there's a narrative that's going around on the right that the Democrats are sort of falling apart.
	And this is being pushed by some folks on the left who want to see an internecine warfare among Democrats.
	So, for example, they're pushing this idea that 16 Democrats have released a letter pledging not to support House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House.
	The letter indicates Pelosi has a bit of a math problem, but she's going to be able to overcome the opposition.
	For signature, for starters, there were supposed to be 17 signatures.
	Representative Marsha Fudge of Ohio, who's deeply radical, was toying with the speaker on herself, but she was removed from the letter.
	And this is the important point, is that folks on the right are waiting for a Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton brawl, free-for-all in the Congress.
	They are thinking that Democrats are going to schism the way that they did in 2016.
	I have my doubts that that's actually going to happen.
	I think that that's that's probably an over read of the situation.
	I think that the Democratic Party and Pelosi particularly are clever enough that they can act as though there is a schism without there actually being a schism.
	The best evidence that this is the actual case is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	So a lot of folks on the left have been suggesting that people on the right are paying outsized attention to Ocasio-Cortez.
	It's a point of great irritation to me.
	If you elevate somebody to a leading position in your party, and then we point out that this person doesn't know things about politics, that is not our fault.
	That's your fault for elevating that person to a lead position.
	I don't remember the left taking the same position about, for example, Sarah Palin, when they mocked the living daylights out of Sarah Palin for stuff she didn't even say.
	I don't remember them saying, well, you know, kind of mean of us to mock this Sarah.
	They said, you picked her for VP.
	We got to mock her.
	OK, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you elevated her.
	We got to mock her.
	That said, Ocasio-Cortez is proving that the left wing of the Democratic Party is willing to work with the mainstream wing of the Democratic Party.
	They're willing to move the party overall to the left, and they're willing to pledge fealty to the current leadership in order to do this.
	Ocasio-Cortez, for example, has now backed Nancy Pelosi.
	I do think that we got sent to Congress on a mandate to change how government works, to change what government even looks like.
	But if we are not on the same page about changing the systems and the values and how we're going to adapt as a party for the future, then what is the point of just changing our party leadership just for the sake of it?
	Okay, and this is smart politicking by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	So before the right thinks that the left is going to fragment, I don't think the left is going to fragment in 2020 the same way that they did in 2016.
	If Bernie Sanders runs, he's not going to be running hard against the establishment candidate.
	There is no establishment-appointed candidate.
	They got rid of the superdelegates.
	That means there will be a hard-fought primary campaign.
	But in the end, the Democrats are going to unify around someone in a way they did not unify around Hillary Clinton.
	Hillary Clinton circa 2016.
	So we shouldn't be particularly sanguine about exactly about the Democrats caving in.
	And again, the Democrats instead are just moving to co-opt their own base.
	The mainstream Democratic Party has embraced talk of voter suppression and voter fraud.
	Their mainstream characters are saying the same thing as members of their base.
	It's dangerous stuff, but it is an indicator that the Democratic Party is in fact unified.
	So opposition creates unity.
	It does.
	The Republicans were more unified in opposition to Barack Obama than they are when it comes to governance.
	The Democrats are exactly the same way.
	They're more fragmented when they are in power.
	They are less fragmented when they are in the opposition.
	Right now, the Democrats are in the opposition.
	This gives them the power of unification.
	And if Republicans don't recognize that, then they are making a crucial political error.
	Now, with all of that said, The Democrats, as I say, are moving radically to the left.
	I have a couple of stories to prove that, which I'll get to in just one second.
	So, story number one, proving that the Democrats are moving radically to the left.
	It's quite fascinating.
	Right now, there is a battle inside the far-left, hardcore base of the Democratic Party as to whether anti-Semitism is okay.
	Yeah, this is broken out into the open with regard to the Women's March.
	So, according to James Barrett over at Daily Wire, the leadership of the Women's March has come under fire from some of the group's once most vocal supporters, including the woman who founded the group and actresses Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing.
	The embattled leaders have since responded to criticism with an intersectionally loaded statement blasting its critics.
	Earlier this year, feminist Tali Goldsheft launched a Change.org petition calling on the leadership of the Women's March, Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez to resign, citing their affiliation with and refusal to condemn notorious racist bigot and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
	The petition reads, many feminists refused to join the Women's March because they did not feel comfortable with the current leadership.
	Now, Women's March participants also no longer feel represented by this organization due to the behavior of its current leadership.
	And so they say they refuse to march behind those particular leaders.
	Both Milano and Messing disavowed the Women's March due to its current leadership.
	On Monday, the Women's March founder, a woman named Teresa Shook, added her voice to the growing chorus of feminists calling on all of these leaders to step down for allowing bigotry, racism, anti-LGBT sentiment, and anti-Semitism to become Now, why do I think that the Women's March will survive all of this?
	co-chair to step down and let others lead who can restore faith in the movement and its original intent.
	The leaders instead fired back and they said that they will not step down.
	They said that we don't know everything.
	We have caused harm.
	At times we have responded with hurt, but we are committed to learning and we are building an intersectional movement our daughters and our daughters' daughters can be proud of.
	Now, why do I think that the Women's March will survive all of this?
	Because I think instead what you're going to see is the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism.
	I think what you're going to see is the left growing more radical in every conceivable way, including the mainstreaming of antisemitism, The latest indicator of that mainstreaming is not just their embrace of two congresswomen who have overtly called for a boycott against the state of Israel, but the mainstreaming of that sentiment among corporate entities that reside on the political left.
	Airbnb, the home rental company that is often used by tourists to rent apartments in locations around the globe, for example, announced yesterday that it would not allow Jewish settlements to be listed in Judea and Samaria.
	In other words, they say that if you are a Jew, and you live in Efrat, in Israel, They will not allow you to rent out your apartment on Airbnb.
	This is a sheer form of corporate anti-Semitism.
	But it's okay with the left, because anti-Semitism is okay with the left, so long as the anti-Semitism is coming from people who are more dispossessed than the Jews.
	This is how it works in intersectional world.
	Not only did Airbnb specifically target Israeli settlements, they only targeted Jews.
	Okay, so they weren't saying that they won't rent an apartment in a frat.
	They said they won't rent any Jewish-owned apartment in a frat.
	So if you're an Arab, or if you're a Christian, and you're a Muslim, Then they will allow you, as long as you're not a Jew, they will rent your apartment in Afrat, but if you're a Jew, then they will not allow you to rent out your apartment in Afrat on Airbnb.
	Airbnb lists apartments in Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Moroccan-occupied Sahara, Chinese-occupied Tibet, Russian-occupied Crimea.
	They rent apartments in some of the most dictatorial places all around the world, but they will not allow a Jew to rent out his apartment in East Jerusalem where he is living legally.
	This is corporate antisemitism, and it's totally okay with the far left, because again, the far left is unifying the Democratic Party.
	What we are seeing is a radicalization of the Democratic Party, because it is easier to move with the radicals than to cast out the radicals.
	The Democratic Party is becoming more and more dangerous because they are indeed a cohesive force.
	These battles do not carry any real weight between people who are against anti-Semitism and for anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party.
	The radicals are going to win out and they're going to shift the mainstream over to them.
	Whenever you hear folks on the left talk about how the right is radical, recognize that the right in this country has not shifted its political position since 2010.
	All movement on the political spectrum All, every bit of it has come from the American left, which is moving further and further to the left and is cohesive in that move specifically now because they exist in opposition to President Trump.
	Now sometimes this radicalization has some pretty funny side effects.
	This is a pretty great story.
	The Women's Resource Center at Eastern Michigan has put the kibosh on its production of the vagina monologues.
	Why?
	Because it was supposed to cater to women?
	And not all women have vaginas.
	This is a real story.
	Eastern Michigan is now not allowing the vagina monologues because it's about women, and there are some transgender men who are women.
	Pretty spectacular stuff.
	It's funny, but it's more sad than funny because unfortunately this is the direction in which the left has chosen to move.
	A sane left would be better for the country than an insane left, but I don't think that that is in the offing anytime soon.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	We've been doing some William Goldman stuff this week because he passed away last week.
	He wrote probably the best memoir on Hollywood ever written, called Adventures in the Screen Trade, a personal view of Hollywood and screenwriting.
	And the book is just fantastic.
	It talks about all of his sort of stories from Hollywood, how he got in the business, his dealings with various studio entities.
	And studio heads and actors and writers.
	It's really fantastic.
	It's a great quick read.
	This is one of his two great books about Hollywood.
	I'll probably recommend the other one tomorrow.
	It's really worthwhile.
	So if you're if you're looking for a fun read during the Thanksgiving weekend, go check out Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman.
	OK, other things that I like.
	So Dan Crenshaw is a congressperson from Texas and Dan Crenshaw is just spectacular.
	He was on one of the Sunday shows and it was on Face the Nation on CBS.
	And one of the Democrats suggested that President Trump was undermining all of the key American institutions.
	And Dan Crenshaw, who is a Navy SEAL who lost his eye fighting in Afghanistan, Dan Crenshaw has some of the best response I've ever seen on national television.
	It's just spectacular.
	How is that an attack on the press, though?
	Because it's literally an attack.
	Oh, I've literally been attacked.
	Let's choose our words carefully.
	His language is an attack.
	Okay, so why can't he speak, why is he not allowed to use his own language and freedom of speech?
	Because, and you talked about this actually, it's important that we lead from example, that we lead from the top.
	And the way that our president is currently being... I agree with you there.
	I agree with you there.
	Style is one thing.
	If you want to criticize style, I'm with you.
	Right?
	But to say it's an attack on the freedom of the press, that is a very bold statement.
	By calling the press the enemy of the people?
	Yeah, I don't like that language.
	That is literally... Okay, so the style.
	I agree.
	I don't like that language.
	Okay, and he is exactly right, but I love that she says it's literally an attack on the press.
	It's like, um, no.
	No.
	Like, see this right here?
	This eyepatch?
	That was literally an attack.
	It is amazing how people have radically changed the nature of the language in order to fit their attacks on President Trump.
	Okay, one more thing that I like.
	So, Kate Fagan is leaving ESPN.
	You may have seen her on First Take and Around the Horn.
	She served as a fill-in host on Outside the Lines.
	Why is she leaving?
	She's leaving because she says, to continue at ESPN, I would have to be immersed in the day-to-day in sports.
	And I found myself more and more interested in other aspects of sports, like how it connects to our culture.
	That was not going to be the big business of ESPN.
	I desperately hope so.
	I desperately hope that ESPN returns to covering sports.
	Last night's Monday Night Football game, by the way, between the Rams and the Chiefs, was utterly unbelievable.
	How about covering sports?
	Because that's what people like watching.
	They don't want to see Kate Fagan comment about LGBT bicycle races.
	No one cares about that crap.
	That's not why I turn on ESPN.
	But ESPN has lost ratings for one reason, because you cannot turn on ESPN without getting social justice warrior discussions about just how heroic Caitlyn Jenner is, or how heroic Fallon Fox is, a man fighting women in UFC.
	If ESPN is ousting all the political actors on ESPN, good.
	That would be great.
	Because they obviously won't have anyone who's remotely right-wing on the network.
	They've fired everybody else.
	This woman, Kate Fagan, she says, I think I thought at one point that I wanted to do a show that made women's sports really cool.
	I thought there could be a show on some of the tangential topics, LGBT issues and mental health.
	Five years ago, I thought I could host a show that introduces new female characters to women's sports world.
	This isn't DSPN's fault, but I'm not that naive now.
	You know why that show wouldn't fly?
	Because no one cares about women's soccer outside of the Women's World Cup every four years when we all pretend to care about women's soccer.
	We care about women's tennis because women's tennis is really good.
	No one cares about women's basketball.
	And no one cares about LGBT issues in the locker room in female lacrosse.
	It turns out what we actually want is to watch games where people hit each other and hold balls and then throw them to each other.
	Like, that's what we want.
	That's all we've been asking for.
	I used to get up at six in the morning so I could watch the highlights on SportsCenter.
	I have not watched SportsCenter for seven years because of their political bent.
	I am not the only one who feels this way.
	So if ESPN decides to move back towards sports, that would definitely be an upgrade over the garbage that they've been programming for the last several years.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	So here in California, obviously we've been having some massive, horrendous wildfires, probably hundreds dead in the Northern California wildfires.
	Shelby Grad is the assistant managing editor of the LA Times.
	And Shelby Grad tweeted out that Jerry Brown, the governor here, who is one million years old, and actually remembers the Pleistocene era, he actually, Shelby tweets out, Jerry Brown told the truth about California fires that no one wants to hear.
	What is that truth?
	That truth is there are too many people.
	I love that for the left, when you suck at being a governor, you just get to claim there are too many people.
	It's amazing.
	So, if you're on the right, and people on the left say, income inequality, you say, right, income inequality has existed in every society at every time.
	The only thing we should be worried about is whether the impoverished in the United States are able to grow economically.
	Then they say, ah, you're ignoring, you're ignoring hope.
	You're ignoring change.
	You're like, well, no, inequality has existed for all of time.
	That's a reality.
	But if you're on the left, And you say, yeah, a bunch of people are going to die in wildfires because there are too many humans?
	And they're like, good answer, good answer.
	Here's what Jerry Brown says.
	He says, you know, we've had fires for long before the Europeans showed up here and our indigenous people had a different way of living with nature.
	For 10,000 years, there were never more than 300,000 people living in California.
	Now we have 40 million and we have a totally different situation.
	He remembers, because 10,000 years ago, Jerry Brown was there.
	He actually observed how many people were there.
	He says, so it's not one thing.
	It's people.
	It's how people live.
	It's where they live.
	It's the changing climate.
	And the truth is, we're going to have more difficulties.
	Except, as it turns out, Jerry Brown fully understands why the wildfires have gotten so bad in the state of California.
	You know why the wildfires have gotten so bad in the state of California?
	Because of state policy.
	That stinks.
	Back in August, he basically acknowledged as much.
	The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported back in August before the wildfires that Brown was proposing one of the most significant changes to the state's logging rules in nearly half a century, according to Emily Zanotti over at Daily Wire.
	Governor Jerry Brown is proposing broad new changes to California's logging rules that would allow landowners to cut larger trees and build temporary roads without obtaining a permit as a way to thin more forests across the state.
	Under Brown's proposal, private landowners would be able to cut trees up to 36 inches in diameter, so long as their purpose was to thin forest or reduce fire risk.
	So he understood, like a couple of months ago, that one of the reasons these big fires were happening is because of crappy fire policy.
	It's not just people on the right saying this, by the way.
	You know, Trump tweeted out this.
	And people were like, oh, how could he?
	How could he tweet this out?
	Now, he shouldn't have tweeted that he was going to withdraw fire aid.
	That was ridiculous.
	But he wasn't wrong that it is fire management policies in the state of California that have exacerbated the risk of bad fires.
	How do I know this?
	Because Mother Jones, the communist magazine, they wrote a piece back in December called A Century of Fire Suppression is Why California is in Flames.
	This piece points out that because they have not actually participated in fire suppression, meaning like controlled fires, controlled burns, that get rid of a lot of the undergrowth, when fires do happen, there are basically giant conflagrations.
	According to experts like Sasha Berleman, who's a fire ecologist, the biggest problem here is 100 years of fire suppression that has led to a huge accumulation of fuel loads, just dead and downed debris from trees and plant materials in our forests and our woodlands.
	As a result of that, our forests and woodlands are not healthy, and we're getting more catastrophic fire behavior than we would otherwise.
	So even Jerry Brown recognizes this, but I love that the media are basically covering for him and saying, you know what?
	It's not that Jerry Brown is bad at his job.
	It's that there are too many people living in California.
	He said the same thing about the... I love this.
	He did say the same thing with regard to the drought in the state of California.
	So it turns out we've had several tens of millions of people in California for as long as I have been alive.
	I've also had drought problems in California for as long as I've been alive.
	We could have built all new infrastructure.
	We could have worked on desalination plants.
	We could have worked on ensuring that we weren't pumping millions of gallons of fresh water out into the San Francisco Bay in order to protect the Delta smelt.
	There's lots of stuff we could have done.
	Instead, Jerry Brown just said there are too many people living in the state of California.
	I love that that's a good excuse.
	There are too many people.
	You notice how the left always comes down to that?
	Abortion makes the economy better because there are too many people.
	You know, global warming is bad because there are too many people.
	Okay, so which million people would you kill?
	Who do you want to off here?
	I promise you, Jerry Brown is not interested in killing off members of his own California constituency, I would imagine.
	It's incredible what you can get away with if you happen to be on the political left.
	Okay, well we will be back here tomorrow with all of the latest as we approach Thanksgiving.
	I know, I'm in a good mood.
	Shouldn't you be in a good mood too?
	Come on, there's a lot to be thankful for.
	We'll be back here tomorrow to discuss all of it.
	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.

▲