Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 26, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

54:44

Saying The Unsayable | Ep. 666

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The migrant caravan reaches the border and all hell breaks loose, Twitter moves to ban science, and the Russians get aggressive with the Ukrainians.
	I'm Ben Shapiro, this is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Well, I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving weekend and that you came back all refreshed.
	We had a great Thanksgiving at my house.
	At my house, we did all of the typical Thanksgiving things.
	We had the great Thanksgiving food, we spent a lot of time with family, and half the family nearly died of dysentery.
	That's a thing that pretty much actually happened.
	We'll get to all of the news in just one second, but first, let's talk about... We're now past Thanksgiving, right?
	So we can talk about Christmas.
	We can talk about buying holiday gifts for people.
	And that means it's time to tell you the gift you need to get for the guys in your life.
	Man crates!
	The man crates know what guys like.
	They have hundreds of unique quality gifts that he is guaranteed to love.
	They've got the exotic meats crate, the whiskey appreciation crate that has a personalized decanter, and personalized glasses.
	The perfect vessels for his favorite scotch or bourbon.
	You know, on Twitter, I said that no real man likes whiskey, everybody really likes strawberry daiquiris, and then I received the man crate of whiskey appreciation.
	And I have to admit, it's rare that I admit a mistake, but I will say the Man Crate of Whiskey Appreciation is pretty fantastic.
	Also, they've got the Grill Master Crate, the Knife Making Crate, they've got all sorts of great gifts.
	And here's the best thing about the Man Crate, you get to find out whether he is indeed a man, because...
	They give you this crate.
	It's like a wooden crate with an actual crowbar.
	And then you have to pry open the man crate in front of everyone.
	See, I didn't want to humiliate myself.
	So instead, I just let my children try to do it for like half an hour.
	And then when I did it, it took me 29 minutes.
	Then I looked like a real man.
	Listeners of this show, buy one gift and you'll get the second gift for 25% off when you go to mancrates.com slash ben.
	The offer is only for the holidays.
	Buy one gift.
	Get the second 25% off at mancrates.com slash ben.
	That is indeed MUNCREATES.COM slash Ben for that special deal.
	I love that advertiser.
	OK, so let's talk about the news, because a lot of stuff happened over the weekend because people just couldn't leave things alone, could you?
	You just couldn't leave it alone.
	You couldn't just go enjoy Disneyland.
	You couldn't just enjoy the turkey.
	Instead, we had to have a bunch of news.
	So here is the latest.
	Over the weekend, hundreds of immigrants tried to storm the border.
	So we were told, as you recall, that immigrants would not, in fact, try to storm the border in this migrant caravan.
	I was one of the people saying that this was a little overestimated.
	It wasn't going to be thousands of people trying to storm the border.
	In fact, it was not thousands of people.
	It was a couple of hundred people.
	I think one person actually made it across the border and then was immediately chased back across the border.
	But tear gas was fired at these crowds.
	Because some of these people were throwing rocks at border patrol agents.
	And here is what it sounded like when hundreds of people tried to storm the border between Tijuana and the United States.
	You can see these folks breaking through a fence, running across no man's land toward the next fence.
	And Border Patrol showed up.
	And they're flying.
	What I do love about this is that you can see that some of them are flying the flag of Honduras.
	And Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the new congresswoman from New York, in all of her wisdom, she said, well, this is just like refugees, like when the Jews were trying to flee Nazi Germany.
	Well, when the Jews were fleeing Nazi Germany, they didn't arrive at Staten Island and Liberty Island with the Nazi flag on them, right?
	If you're actually fleeing a place because of political asylum needs, you typically don't fly the flag of the place from which you are running.
	Also, the vast majority of these people are not coming because of political violence.
	The vast majority of these people are coming for economic necessity.
	Which is a fine reason to try and enter another country, but you have to do so legally.
	You don't get to try to break through the fence.
	And that was not just that video.
	There is also video of people who are pushing and trying to push through the fence while shouting, yes, we can.
	Here they were at one of the border patrol stations at one of the big walls, and they actually tried to force open the fence.
	So you can see people there standing right outside the fence, and some people shouting, si se puede.
	And then it got even worse.
	There were some folks who were actually physically throwing rocks at members of Border Patrol, which was just delightful.
	In this video, if you can't see it, I will describe it for you, you can see folks who are actually picking up rocks, throwing them at Border Patrol agents, and then there was the famous picture that is now on the front page of every newspaper of Border Patrol having fired some tear gas near the crowd.
	Nobody apparently really got hurt, but here is some of the video what it sounds like.
	So you can see here's a guy picking up stones, turning around and trying to throw it at Border Patrol.
	You can see them trying to fling the stones over the fence at Border Patrol.
	Now, once you do that, Border Patrol agents have every right to defend themselves as they see the need.
	Are these people we want to be citizens of the United States?
	Are these people we want to enter the United States?
	The answer, of course, is no.
	If you are throwing rocks at the members of our Border Patrol, while presumably attempting to enter the country illegally, We do not want you here in the United States.
	Now, what's really funny is to watch a bunch of folks on the left downplay all this stuff.
	Well, it didn't happen.
	Or if it did happen, it's not really a big deal.
	Let's not make a big deal.
	And at the same time say it is so evil and so terrible that tear gas was deployed against all of these refugees, these poor huddled masses yearning to be free.
	Brian Stelter, The news guy over at CNN, right?
	His job is to monitor media bias, but he is a good example of it himself.
	Brian Stelter tweeted out, I'm watching the coverage.
	The southern border is 1,954 miles long.
	It's not being overwhelmed.
	That is legitimately one of the dumber points I have ever heard about any sort of attempt to breach a border.
	It turns out that the border between France and Germany was several hundred miles long.
	And when the Germans moved through Belgium in 19, in 19, 39, and that was actually not... Well, let's see, when did they move through Belgium?
	Yeah, 1939.
	When they actually moved... 1940.
	When they moved through Belgium in 1940, it turns out that that was a breach of the border that did not require you to breach the entire border at once.
	All you have to do is breach one point in the border, and that would amount to a border breach.
	And if people just rushed through that, then that would be overwhelmed.
	Now, was the border overwhelmed?
	No.
	We had people there.
	It was stopped.
	Still, this is evidence that if you didn't have people there, you didn't have a wall, you didn't have some sort of physical obstruction, it would not be stopped.
	Simone Sanders, another commentator on CNN, she said, reminder, these are asylum seekers.
	The United States government is attacking asylum seekers.
	And this is after Chris Sherman of the Associated Press tweeted, Okay, so here is the question.
	Why were the parents there with the choking toddlers near a place where people were attempting to breach the border wall?
	Okay, so here is the question.
	Why were the parents there with the choking toddlers near a place where people were attempting to breach the border wall?
	We have border patrol stations.
	If people want to apply for asylum, all they have to do is walk up to the border patrol station and ask for asylum papers.
	Instead, people are trying to breach that border, throwing rocks at folks, and then when tear gas is fired back, then all of a sudden it's, how dare we do any of this?
	So it turns out...
	Now, this is actually nothing new.
	President Obama in 2013 had a very similar situation.
	Back in 2013, there were a bunch of people who tried to break through, and during the Obama years, it turns out that tear gas was fired as well.
	The use of tear gas was used several years back.
	No one cared then.
	And it turns out that the caravan confirms what President Trump has been saying for a long time, which is that the aiding and abetting of this migrant caravan to get them to the border so that they could use violence against Border Patrol agents and try to break through the border is a problem.
	Now, did that require 15,000 troops down at the southern border?
	No.
	Is it a massive crisis where thousands of people are breaking through the border and they're going to invade the country?
	No.
	Is it a problem?
	Yes, of course it's a problem.
	This is not stopping folks on the left from trying to turn this into a human rights issue.
	Brian Schatz, who is the senator from Nevada, he said, Who gave the order?
	This is what he tweeted out, as though this is like he's now Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men.
	And suddenly you're gonna see President Trump going, you want me on that wall!
	You need me on that wall!
	So, he's the senator from Hawaii, sorry, and he is an idiot.
	Who gave the order?
	Well, the order to defend yourself from people throwing rocks at you without killing people?
	I mean, probably like the normal rules of engagement that apply in any sort of conflict situation, probably that.
	Again, I do find it ironic and weird that so many folks on the left are very, very upset at the deployment of like a tear gas canister at the border when people are throwing rocks at our troops.
	They didn't care when Obama did it.
	I mean, hell, they didn't care when Obama was literally droning American citizens who he said were terrorists.
	I don't mind droning American citizens, maybe, maybe, who are terrorists, maybe, although I think that's legally dicey, but it is amazing to watch all these people suddenly rediscover their feelings about civil liberties for people attacking American troops when it's a Republican who's president again.
	Now what's hilarious about all of this Is that there are some Democrats who are beginning to realize that maybe this isn't the best election pitch.
	Maybe the best election pitch for 2020 isn't, we don't care about the border, let everybody through.
	One of those people is, believe it or not, Hillary Clinton.
	So over the weekend, Hillary Clinton admitted That Europe has badly mishandled the migration crisis from the Middle East.
	Here is what she had to say about Europe's dealing with its own borders and the migrant crisis that has swamped Western Europe.
	She said, quote, I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame.
	I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken by leaders like Angela Merkel of Germany.
	But I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part and must send a very clear message.
	We are not going to be able to continue providing refuge and support because if we don't deal with the migration issue, it will continue to roil the body politic.
	Kind of interesting, right?
	I mean, that's exactly what President Trump has been saying.
	Now Democrats are starting to say that as well.
	John Kerry last week said something very similar about the migrant crisis in Europe.
	And yet the Democratic Party in the United States is embracing the full-scale dovish position on immigration that Hillary and Kerry won't embrace with regard to Europe.
	So why is it OK for us to talk about the migrant crisis in Europe, but not to talk about the migrant crisis with regard to Mexico?
	The answer, of course, is because President Trump is not responsible for immigration policy in Europe.
	He is responsible for immigration policy in the United States.
	And that means that they have to yell at President Trump no matter what.
	Still, members of the left continue to push and promote the most left-leaning version of what immigration policy should be, including, of course, the op-ed page over at the New York Times.
	There's a piece by a woman named Jessa Crispin over at the New York Times called Marrying Him Was Political.
	Sponsoring His Visa Is For Love.
	A Romantic, Pragmatic, Green Card Wedding Day.
	And here's what she says.
	Again, this is the New York Times promoting immigration fraud, basically.
	She says, We were sitting in a dive bar in Kansas City, Missouri, with two whiskey sodas, and the man I had met only 10 days before said he had an important question to ask me.
	The last important question was, what is your relationship to potato chips?
	Which he'd asked while gesturing to the many bags of various flavors piled in my pantry.
	So it wasn't as if I was expecting anything electric to come out of his mouth.
	I looked at him, and he said with a steady gaze, Would you marry me?
	I felt the strangest thing.
	Not joy, not shock, not fear.
	I felt calm.
	Calm, as everyone who knows me is aware, is a rare feeling for me.
	But first, I had to make sure he wasn't making fun of me.
	Is that a hypothetical or a practical question?
	Both, he said.
	Then, yes.
	We ordered another round, set a date for our courthouse wedding four days later, and immediately began to text our friends.
	What?
	Why?
	Are you sure?
	I ignored them.
	Drunk on whiskey and other stuff, we stumbled out of the bar.
	This is obviously a recipe for excellent decision making.
	As I stood on the curb to hail a cab, he ran to the drugstore next door.
	Just need to get something.
	He came back, his arms full of potato chips, bags of every flavor they had on the shelves.
	But marriage is not about love.
	It is about politics.
	All of my adult life, I have argued for the abolition of marriage.
	Because marriage is a series of rights unfairly distributed to men and women who have found love or have deluded themselves into thinking they have found love.
	If romantic love is its own reward, as every Hollywood film and novel in the women's fiction section at the bookstore would have us believe, then why pile on tax breaks, hospital visitation, health insurance, immigration assistance, and all the rest of it?
	Having a successful love life should not have a determination on whether you live or die.
	Okay, so this gets even more idiotic, but the bottom line is that this woman basically married the guy in order so that he could get immigration.
	He said, holding my partner's hand at the immigration lawyer's office, I wanted so much to give this to him.
	A stabilized future, the ability to live and work where he wanted, a larger canvas for his ambitions.
	And yet something in me started to draw back at that moment.
	A whirlwind adventure of love and romance started to look like a strategic seduction.
	He might fear that I might be mercenary.
	I kept thinking of that line spoken by Morris Townsend in the movie, The Heiress, based on Henry James's Washington Square.
	And this entire article just goes on to describe how this woman basically married the guy so that he would be able to get an immigration, a green card, basically.
	She says, marrying him was a political act.
	Sponsoring him for a visa is a devotional act.
	We're amassing a file to prove that the relationship is real and not a transaction.
	The American government gives you a list of things it will be looking for to provide the legitimacy of your love.
	She said, the file wears on both of us.
	Pictures we take of each other are both for us and for the government.
	When I say, what's your niece's name again?
	I'm asking you to set it into my brain for the eventual quiz, not out of curiosity.
	Just delightful.
	Just delightful.
	So the New York Times promoting essentially immigration fraud at the same time that people are storming the borders.
	That's just wonderful.
	We'll get to more of the left's failures on immigration and why President Trump has an actual opening here in just a second.
	First, let's talk about how you need to mail a bunch of stuff.
	Okay, we are coming up on the holiday season.
	That means you're going to be mailing a lot of stuff.
	Do you really want to schlep all that stuff down to the post office?
	Post office is great.
	Do you really want to schlep it there, or would it be easier for you if you could just get the exact postage, print it out, stick it on package, and then wait for the post office to pick it up from your house or from your office?
	The answer, of course, is the latter, and that's why you need Stamps.com.
	Stamps.com brings all the services of the U.S.
	Post Office directly to your desktop.
	Buy and print official U.S.
	postage for any letter, any package, any class of mail using your own computer and printer, and then the mail carrier picks it up.
	No trips to the post office required.
	Could not be easier.
	Stamps.com not only saves you time, it saves you money because you're printing the right amounts of postage every time.
	You're never overpaying.
	And with Stamps.com, you get discounts on postage, too, that you can't even get at the post office.
	Stamps.com is a fantastic gift.
	This holiday season, go to Stamps.com right now.
	Because we use it here at Daily Wire offices, I use it at my house as well.
	And right now, you can enjoy the Stamps.com service with a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus postage and a digital scale without long-term commitments.
	Go to Stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in promo code SHAPIRO.
	That's Stamps.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
	Go check it out right now.
	Stamps.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
	So as I say, President Trump now has a big win on the way here because the left has pushed too hard on the border issue.
	They keep saying that open borders are fine, that our guys should not be able to protect themselves.
	They keep yelling at President Trump about why the border basically needs to be left unprotected, why the wall is a stupid idea.
	And Trump has been warning for a long time that these folks were going to try and break through.
	All he required was a little bit of video of people breaking through to justify his questions.
	And then it turns out people did exactly that.
	The attempt to downplay this by the media is simply an attempt to back a narrative that they had been laying out that was subjective, not objective.
	It's once again an indictment of the politicization of the media.
	Now, there are people who have been trying to cover this objectively, saying, OK, well, there are people coming to the border.
	That's not great.
	If they try to break through the border, they should be treated as criminals because they are criminals at that point.
	Also, sending 15,000 troops to the border, not necessary.
	A lot of those folks are there superfluously for political purposes.
	But illegal immigration is a problem.
	That'd be the most objective way to cover this.
	The media, however, was fully invested in the idea that the migrant caravan not only was a big nothing, but that it was created just for purposes of the election itself.
	And then once the election was over, Trump forgot about it, except now it's back in the headlines.
	Why?
	Because it turns out it was an issue after all.
	It was an issue after all.
	Okay, now.
	Speaking of saying the unsayable, as President Trump has been doing on immigration, we gotta talk about Twitter and social media.
	Because what Twitter and social media have been doing over the last week and a half, really, really astonishing.
	So, over the weekend, there's a guy named Jesse Kelly.
	Jesse Kelly is a former Marine.
	He's a conservative writer and radio host who was banned from Twitter on Sunday.
	He has been given no excuse by Twitter why he was banned.
	According to the explanation and screenshot provided by Kelly to the Daily Wire, this is a piece by Amanda Prestigiacomo, Twitter violated its own policy by not informing him of the content that apparently earned him the permanent suspension.
	Kelly claims the only communication he had with Twitter regarding the ban was the following message.
	Your account was permanently suspended due to multiple or repeat violations of the Twitter rules.
	The account will not be restored.
	Please do not respond to this email as replies and new appeals for this account will not be monitored.
	So they basically just killed his Twitter account.
	Ultimately, they just destroyed it.
	And the fact that Jesse Kelly was banned from Twitter.
	He'd been talking about this in advance for a long time, that Twitter was cracking down on conservatives.
	Basically, Jesse Kelly is banned for no reason.
	Louis Farrakhan still gets to call the Jews termites.
	So all of this is going really well over at Twitter.
	It gets even worse over at Twitter.
	Basically, I have about 1.8 million followers on Twitter, somewhere in that neighborhood.
	I expect to be banned any day from Twitter.
	Why?
	Because I maintain that a man is a man and a woman is a woman.
	Twitter has now adopted a policy.
	I'm not kidding you.
	This is a massive social media network with a certain amount of immunity to lawsuit.
	Because they're treated as a common carrier, basically, even though they are, in fact, an editorial website.
	As I've talked about before, they're being treated like a phone line.
	As though they have no editorial discretion.
	They're using editorial discretion now in vast ways.
	And because of that, it seems to me that they should be relieved of their presumption of non-guilt when it comes to violations of copyright law, for example.
	As I've said before, legally speaking, The Daily Wire, right?
	We're here at The Daily Wire.
	If we run a libel, a libelous story, we are liable for that.
	We are legally liable for that.
	You can sue us for that.
	That's because we are an editorial website and we make editorial judgments and you can sue us if we run something libelous.
	Hey, if something libelous appears on Twitter, Twitter is not sued for that.
	Why?
	Because it's like a phone line, right?
	They're not discriminating based on content.
	Except they are discriminating based on content.
	Listen to the insanity of the story.
	Twitter is now outright banning science.
	They are banning science outright for political purposes.
	This is according to Pink News, a website from the UK.
	Twitter has now prohibited misgendering and deadnaming on its platform in an effort to curtail anti-trans abuse.
	The social media company has changed its rules to ban the practices and has warned that any user who deliberately targets a trans person in these ways may face permanent suspension.
	These offensive techniques, which involve using the wrong gender to refer to a trans person or a trans person's old name, are often used on Twitter to insult and erase trans people's identities and right to exist.
	This is such propagandistic nonsense.
	The only way to erase somebody's right to exist is to kill them, right, or to jail them.
	Nobody's talking about doing any of this with transgender people.
	But if the idea is that I now have to say that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, I'm not doing that.
	And if the idea is that Bradley Manning, right, changed his name legally to Chelsea Manning, my rule about names, by the way, is that I am more than happy to use the names which you legally change your name, because people can change their names without changing the underlying sex, but I'm not going to grant you in public In public discourse about the nature of sex, I'm not going to suggest that you're a member of the biological sex to which you do not belong.
	It's illogical, and it's foolish, and it destroys boundaries that nature created and that you cannot put asunder simply because you want to.
	But Twitter now says that if I refer to Chelsea Manning as a man, that they could ban me.
	If I say Caitlyn Jenner is a man, they could ban me.
	And if Jesse Kelly says Caitlyn Jenner won a medal as Bruce Jenner, or that Chelsea Manning was convicted as Bradley Manning, then Jesse Kelly could be banned permanently from Twitter.
	This is what deadnaming is.
	Deadnaming is the idea that you are insulting someone by using the name that they were born with and that they experienced most of their life with.
	And so if you use their old name, so I guess if we use Cassius Clay, is that also dead naming?
	Because that was Muhammad Ali's name until he changed it in the middle of his boxing career?
	In Twitter's updated terms of service, the company now states, quote, We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes, or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade, or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category.
	Weird, because I remember when Louis Farrakhan is still on Twitter and he called the Jews termites.
	That was weird.
	I remember when I received 7,400 anti-Semitic slurs in the course of six months in 2016, and the vast majority of those people were never banned.
	They say that this includes misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.
	This is absurd in the extreme.
	Absurd in the extreme.
	It's anti-scientific in a very real way.
	Men are men.
	Women are women.
	And if you're going to argue to me that biological sex no longer exists, you're going to have the same problem the Catholic Church had in the 15th century when they were trying to claim that the universe was geocentric.
	You can't argue with science.
	Science is still science.
	We're going to get to more of social media crackdowns in just a second.
	And where all of this is going, because it really is dangerous and negative.
	But first, let's talk about how you can feed your dog better.
	Dog food companies claim to use natural ingredients, but what kind of beef or carrots can actually sit in a paper bag for a year?
	We can't eat processed foods for every meal and be our healthiest.
	Neither can your dog.
	This is why you need the Farmer's Dog, the company helping dogs live long, healthy lives with nutritious, fresh, ready-to-serve dog meals delivered directly to your door.
	So I am not a dog owner, but my sister is a dog owner, and she uses the Farmer's Dog.
	Folks in the office have dogs.
	Jasper loves the Farmer's Dog.
	You can even just ask.
	Chief Executive Dog of the Daily Wire, Jasper.
	He voraciously gives his pawprint of approval.
	Start feeding your dog better today.
	Try a week free at thefarmersdog.com slash Ben.
	Go check it out right now.
	You get free shipping.
	Get your first week free at thefarmersdog.com slash Ben.
	It is fantastic.
	Dog owners have been conditioned to feed their dogs basically, you know, the highly processed stuff.
	But instead, you should be getting real fresh food for your dog the same way that you should be feeding yourself real fresh food.
	The Farmer's Dog makes it happen.
	Studies show adding fresh food to your dog's diet can reduce some cancers by close to 90%.
	And again, start feeding right there with your first week free at TheFarmersDog.com slash Ben.
	That's TheFarmersDog.com slash Ben.
	You love your dog, so give your dog food that it wants.
	TheFarmersDog.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so...
	Twitter has decided that they are now going to ban basic science.
	Basic science.
	And this has led me to basically say over and over on Twitter, yesterday and today, men are men, women are women, come at me, bro.
	If Twitter wants to ban me for saying that men are men and women are women, and that biological sex is a thing, and that the term gender is a made-up term by social justice warriors that has no actual social science data to back it, Right?
	If by gender, you mean.
	So, all of transgenderism, all of the transgender civil rights movement, is based on deliberate misclassifications of various terms.
	Okay, so if we're talking about biological sex, there's no question that human beings are sexually dimorphic.
	There are men, and there are women.
	And when people say, well, there are a bunch of sexes in between.
	No, you're now talking about intersex disorders.
	Okay, those are actual disorders.
	But that's like saying that because a pencil that came off the assembly line was mistakenly created without an eraser, that pencils generally do not have erasers.
	Or if a pencil came off the line, it didn't have lead.
	The pencils don't have lead.
	The definition of a pencil is that it doesn't have lead.
	There's no such thing as a pencil.
	Right?
	That's ridiculous.
	That's ridiculous.
	Words have meanings.
	Terms have meanings.
	Biological sex has a meaning.
	And to pretend otherwise is to deny science.
	It's so funny to hear all these people who love to talk about climate change pretend there's no such thing as a man and no such thing as a woman.
	So, there's biological sex.
	Then there's a term called gender.
	And this is where the left has decided that gender is basically along the spectrum of maleness and femaleness.
	There's a bunch of genders, an infinite variety of genders, in fact.
	The amount that you are male, or the amount that you are female, and carries certain characteristics.
	And we are all different these ways, right?
	Because there are some men who are more manly men, and they love man crates, right?
	And then there are some men who are more girly men, right?
	And they love all the sponsors over at Pod Save America, right?
	There are lots of different kinds of men, right?
	Male, more masculine, more feminine.
	But the term gender has no specified number of genders that exist, right?
	It's basically just every individual has their own gender, which means that it's a meaningless term.
	If you just want to say every individual on planet Earth is a mix of characteristics, Sure.
	Agree.
	But if your claim is that now we have to make up a pronoun for every one of you, the pronoun is called your name.
	We don't actually have to do that.
	I'm not going to make up a pronoun.
	I'm not going to do any of that.
	I'm going to use biological terms because biological terms Are the terms that we have historically used when we are talking about humans.
	And using intersex to replace transgender is a complete misnomer.
	It's not the same thing at all.
	Transgender folks are claiming they can be fully genetically male and also female at the same time.
	Fail.
	Fail.
	This is biologically not true.
	Okay, so.
	With all of that said, then folks who are on the transgender civil rights side, they say, well, okay, fine.
	You want to say that you don't want to use our preferred pronouns.
	And by the way, when it comes to individual conversation, I've been asked this repeatedly.
	If I were out to dinner with a transgender person, I did a breakfast recently with a transgender person.
	Do I go out of my way to say pronouns that offend the person?
	No, just like I wouldn't go out of my way to offend you if we were at dinner, even if I thought what you were saying was wrong, right?
	There's no purpose to it.
	But when I'm talking public policy and how many sexes there are, I'm not going to pretend there are 93 sexes.
	There are not 93 sexes.
	And pretending this stuff does have real-world consequences.
	In my community, in my Jewish community, there's a gym nearby.
	It's a gym that is sex segregated.
	Why?
	Because Orthodox Jewish women are supposed to be, supposed to hew by certain religious standards of modesty.
	Orthodox Jewish women go to this gym.
	It's a gym that is just for women.
	Well, last week, apparently, there was a man who walked into that gym and said, I am a transgender woman.
	And then not only did he walk into the gym and claim that he was a transgender woman, he then proceeded to disrobe in front of all the women.
	They have individual lockers, locker rooms, like, like small private spaces where he could change.
	But instead, this person decided that he was, as a woman, he had every right to change in public with these religious women.
	Every one of those religious women is going to now drop their gym membership, and the gym can't do anything about it.
	Because if the gym were to say to this guy, dude, you're a biological male, you need to dress by yourself in here, even if you consider yourself a woman, then they would be sued out of existence.
	This stuff does have consequences, and those consequences, like, are these women sexist for saying they don't want to undress themselves in front of a male?
	Or, they would prefer to go to a female locker room where they don't have to see a penis?
	This is this is absurd stuff.
	So there's a bunch of linguistic confusion that is deliberately pervade by folks on the social justice left with regard to this issue.
	And it leads to some of the most absurd results.
	It leads to absurd results with actual public policy consequences.
	Take, for example, this article from The New York Times.
	I'm not making this up.
	This is in the New York Times over the last three days.
	It is by a person named Andrea Long Chu, who's a biological male who's a transgender woman, meaning a biological male who has gender dysphoria and believes that he is in fact a woman in a male body.
	The title of this article, I'm not kidding you, My New Vagina Won't Make Me Happy And It Shouldn't Have To.
	Here's what the article says.
	Next Thursday, I will get a vagina.
	Like where?
	Best Buy?
	How's that gonna work?
	Like, it's a Cyber Monday sale.
	Okay.
	The procedure will last around six hours and I will be in recovery for at least three months.
	Until the day I die, my body will regard the vagina as a wound.
	As a result, it will require regular painful attention to maintain.
	This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier.
	In fact, I don't expect it to.
	That shouldn't disqualify me from getting it.
	First of all, let's note in this first paragraph, what this person is getting is not a vagina.
	What this person is getting is a wound.
	Okay, it is a wound.
	A vagina is not, in fact, a wound.
	A vagina is a bodily organ that does not attempt to heal up on its own, because it is a bodily organ.
	Okay, I like to say that being trans, the article says, is the second worst thing that ever happened to me.
	The worst was being born a boy.
	Dysphoria is notoriously difficult to describe to those who haven't experienced it, like a flavor.
	Its official definition, the distress some transgender feel at the Incongruence between the gender they express and the gender they've been socially assigned does little justice to the feeling.
	But in my experience at least, dysphoria feels like being unable to get warm no matter how many layers you put on.
	It feels like hunger without appetite.
	It feels like getting on an airplane to fly home only to realize mid-flight that this is it.
	You're going to spend the rest of your life on an airplane.
	It feels like grieving.
	It feels like having nothing to grieve.
	This is terrible, obviously.
	I mean, this is really terrible, difficult stuff.
	And you can have sympathy for folks like this and still recognize that this person is not a biological woman, will never be a biological woman, and is not a woman, in fact, is a man.
	Many conservatives call this crazy.
	No, we call this a mental illness.
	Okay, crazy is derogatory.
	Mental illness is something my grandfather had.
	Runs in my family, right?
	I mean, there are people I know who are mentally ill with whom I'm very close, who have suffered from severe mental disorders.
	I know that we're trying now to basically strawman the other position on the part of the social justice left.
	That if you refuse to use the pronouns of choice, that you are now contributing to suffering, or that you wish to.
	But that's just not the case.
	A popular right-wing narrative holds that gender dysphoria is a clinical delusion.
	Hence, feeding of that delusion with hormones and surgeries constitutes a violation of medical ethics.
	And then, here's where it gets to the public policy.
	It says, In this view, it is not only fair to refuse trans people the care they seek, it is also kind.
	A therapist with a suicidal client does not draw the bath and supply the razor.
	Take it from my father, a pediatrician, who once remarked to me he would no sooner prescribe puberty blockers to a gender dysphoric child than he would give a distemper shot to someone who believed she was a dog.
	Naturally, a liberal counter-narrative exists and it has become increasingly mainstream.
	Transgender people are not deluded, but they are suffering.
	Therefore, medical professionals have a duty to ease that suffering.
	The article goes on, and then here is where we reach the crux of the matter.
	It says, I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones.
	One reason is that absent the levies of the closet, years of repressed longing for the girlhood I never have had flooded my consciousness.
	I'm now a marshland of regret.
	Another reason is that I take estrogen, effectively delayed-release sadness, a little aquamarine pill that more or less guarantees a good weep within six to eight hours.
	Like many of my trans friends, I've watched my dysphoria balloon since I began transition.
	I now feel very strongly about the length of my index fingers, enough that I will sometimes shyly unthread my hand for my girlfriends as we walk down the street.
	When she tells me I'm beautiful, I resent it.
	I've been outside, I know what beautiful looks like, don't patronize me.
	I was not suicidal before hormones.
	Now I often am.
	I won't go through with it, probably.
	Killing is icky.
	I tell you this not because I'm cruising for sympathy, but to prepare you for what I'm telling you now.
	I still want this.
	All of it.
	I want the tears.
	I want the pain.
	Transition doesn't have to make me happy for me to want it.
	Left to their own devices, people will rarely pursue what makes them feel good in the long term.
	Desire and happiness are independent agents.
	And then this person makes the case that basically the medical establishment should give you a surgery even if it is bad for you.
	This person says the medical maxim, first do no harm, assumes that health care providers possess both the means and the authority to decide what counts as harm.
	Let me be clear.
	I believe that surgeries of all kinds can and do make an enormous difference in the lives of trans people, but I also believe that surgery's only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.
	So you want a surgery?
	You get a surgery.
	And then we can force a doctor to perform the surgery, even if it's going to be bad for you, make you more suicidal, make you more likely to kill yourself, and is going to be a gaping wound in your body for the rest of your life.
	This stuff has consequences, but we can't openly discuss it on Twitter, lest we be banned.
	We can't openly discuss it.
	I'm going to get to more of this in just one second.
	First, if all of this makes you want to drink, then perhaps you need Saucy.
	Saucy is the alcohol delivery app.
	Saucy delivers your favorite wine, beer, or liquor right to your door.
	You're going to be partying it up this holiday season, and you're in the middle of the party, and you don't want to run out to the liquor store because, number one, it might be closed, and number two, you actually don't want to leave the party for an hour to go get all the liquor.
	Instead, If you're in L.A., the Bay Area, Chicago, San Diego, or Sacramento, your Saucy order will arrive at your door in under 30 minutes, ready to drink.
	For the rest of us, Saucy delivers beer, wine, and liquor to your door in two days or less nationwide.
	No order minimums, no delivery fees, no running to the store.
	If you got the Saucy app, you got a fully stocked bar right there on your phone.
	And for a limited time, you can get $15 off when you download the Saucy app and enter promo code Ben.
	That's the Saucy app spelled S-A-U-C-E-Y.
	Enter promo code Ben for $15 off.
	Get the Saucy app today.
	Use promo code Ben.
	Again, You're going to be needing drinks this holiday season, if only to get through it with your relatives.
	This is why you ought to be checking out the Saucy app.
	S-A-U-C-E-Y.
	And when you use promo code Ben, you get $15 off.
	Even if you are just an occasional drinker, even if you just want to make sure that your relatives don't have to don't have to be quite so edgy all the time.
	Well, then Saucy is for you because let's be real about this.
	Everyone could use a little alcohol this time of year when you're with your family this much.
	Check it out.
	S-A-U-C-E-Y.
	Enter promo code Ben for $15 off.
	That is Saucy.
	And get that Saucy app today and use that promo code Ben.
	So, more on social media's crackdown on science and discussions that we have to have in public, and that must be had.
	But first, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com.
	For $9.99 a month, you can subscribe.
	One of the reasons you should subscribe, by the way, is to ensure that when all these social media sites crack down on conservatives, you can still get all of our content.
	Go check us out right now over at dailywire.com for $9.99 a month to get the rest of this show live, the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, the rest of Michael Knowles' ex-Scribble show live.
	Don't miss Andrew Klavan's next chapter of Another Kingdom.
	If you're not a subscriber, you won't be able to watch new episodes of Season 2 until Friday.
	So what are you waiting for?
	You could be getting it early, and you could be watching all the great art.
	Head on over to dailywire.com, subscribe to watch the first and second seasons of Another Kingdom.
	Also, we have lots more goodies that are coming up.
	In the new year, once you become a subscriber, you get two additional hours of this show.
	Are you kidding me?
	I'm not.
	I'm going to be here, doing it every day.
	You're going to want to be there.
	You get all that stuff when you subscribe, like right now, so you should totally go over and do that right now.
	For $99 a year, you get all of those aforementioned wonders, plus this, the very greatest in beverage vessels.
	Look upon it and sigh.
	I wish, if only, if only I had let my wife drink from the leftist chair's hot or cold tumbler over the weekend.
	She would have been able to avoid the grave disease that now afflicts her.
	If you want to avoid all disease, if you want to be healthy for the rest of your life, if you never want to die, then you ought to go out and get the leftist tears hot or cold tumbled.
	None of that's guaranteed, by the way.
	None of that's guaranteed.
	I'm just saying, it's a theory.
	It's been said.
	Not FDA approved.
	It's been said.
	So go check it out right now.
	You get all those things for $99 a year, which is cheaper than the monthly subscription.
	Go check it out right now.
	Now we have the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So Twitter is cracking down on all expressions of science with regard to sex.
	Twitter is refusing to allow any sort of conversations about the nature of gender dysphoria, when gender surgery, sex reassignment.
	Sex cannot be reassigned, by the way, because it was never assigned in the first place.
	To be reassigned, sex would have to be assigned.
	It was not assigned.
	You were born with it.
	Any more than I was assigned my foot, and cutting off my foot would be reassigning my foot.
	That's not how this works.
	Just because you changed the body part that we're talking about here does not mean that you had your sex reassigned.
	So this whole thing is really absurd.
	The language of it is absurd.
	But Twitter is now going to enforce it.
	This basic censorship is un-American.
	It's un-American.
	Twitter is acting in un-American fashion by shutting down necessary public policy conversations on the basis that is offensive to someone.
	This is feelings over fact.
	And let's be real about this.
	If Twitter believes that it is now the job of Twitter to prevent social conversations on important public topics, because some people may take it the wrong way, then Twitter's going to be banning everybody except for Jack, who apparently has all the right views.
	Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter.
	It's not just Twitter, by the way.
	There's a report that got very, very little attention when it was reported in the Wall Street Journal a little bit earlier this year.
	It's amazing that it didn't get more attention.
	The Wall Street Journal reported two weeks ago that Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg pressured a top executive at his company to apologize for his support of President Trump in the 2016 election, and then issue a letter just before the election explaining that he had switched his support to libertarian Gary Johnson.
	According to reporters Kirsten Grind and Keech Hagee, Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says he was put on leave and then fired for his support for Trump.
	The Journal reported, quote, In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the denunciation simmered, Facebook executives, including Mr. Zuckerberg, pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey's years-long support of Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the conversations and internal emails viewed by the Wall Street Journal.
	Luckey ended up negotiating a $100 million settlement, an acceleration of stock awards and bonuses he would have received Thanks to his sale of Oculus VR to Facebook in 2014, Facebook denied he was fired for his political views.
	But Lucky was a supporter of President Trump for years, going back to 2011 when he urged Trump to run for president by mail.
	In September 2016, the Daily Beast reported Lucky had given a $10,000 donation to Nimble America.
	Which was an anti-Hillary ad group focused on trolling her.
	Lucky then apparently posted on a Reddit chain under a pseudonym regarding Clinton.
	He posted Hillary Clinton is corrupt, a warmonger, a freedom stripper.
	Not the good kind you see dancing in bikinis on Independence Day, the bad kind that strips freedom from citizens and grants it to donors.
	Facebook employees complained about Lucky with engineering director Sravinas Narayanan writing, quote, multiple women have literally teared up in front of me in the last few days.
	Some developers said they wouldn't work with Lucky.
	Lucky denied he posted about Clinton under a pseudonym.
	He added he was a libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson.
	Here is what the journal report said.
	I need to tell you that Zuckerberg himself drafted this and details are critical.
	said Facebook Deputy General Counsel Paul Grewal.
	He wrote to a lawyer for Lucky in a September 2016 email, attaching an early draft of the statement.
	The draft said Lucky would not be supporting Trump in the election.
	Lucky told people he did vote for Mr. Johnson, but only to avoid having his credibility questioned if he was asked about the issue under oath in unrelated litigation.
	The apology went through many drafts.
	Lucky, ultimately approved changes suggested by Facebook, according to people familiar with the process.
	Amazing stuff.
	So Facebook basically took out a guy for $100 million after trying to force him to say that he didn't vote for Trump and voted instead for Gary Johnson.
	These social media companies do not appreciate basic political views from anywhere to the right of center.
	Anywhere.
	Anywhere.
	And it's gradually moving from the fringes.
	So there are a bunch of conservatives who you see, pseudo-conservatives and conservatives on Twitter and on Facebook.
	And they're like, well, if they ban this guy, if they ban Alex Jones or Laura Loomer or people who we find unpalatable, well, the alligator will eat us last.
	Right, the alligator will eat you last.
	And then it'll eat you.
	I despise Alex Jones.
	I think that Laura Loomer is a crackpot.
	That doesn't matter.
	The fact is that once you start banning people for a political viewpoint that is non-violent in orientation and is non-slanderous and non-legally actionable, you end up in a place where the only approved opinions are the approved opinions of Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.
	That's what's happening here.
	And you can see it manifest.
	It's so funny how strange new respect from the left only lasts as long as you're a useful tool for the left.
	So, over at Crooked Media, There's another story over Crooked Media.
	So Crooked Media, of course, the folks behind Pod Save America and...
	You know, these seem like nice dudes.
	I haven't really had a lot of dealings with them.
	There's Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Tommy Vietor.
	They announced that they had dumped a guy named Tim Miller.
	Tim Miller is a never-Trump Republican.
	He'd been hired by Crooked Media as their token Republican, but then they fired him.
	Why did they fire him?
	Because it turns out that Tim Miller had been working with a group called Definers Public Affairs, and that group had been working with Facebook to reveal the fact that George Soros was pushing a lot of propaganda against Facebook.
	So Crooked Media fired Tim Miller.
	So Miller was good when he was criticizing Trump.
	He was good when he kept criticizing Trump continuously.
	But when he did things that they didn't like, then they fired him.
	So they put out a statement that said, We wanted to give you an update on Tim Miller.
	We invited Tim to contribute to Crooked because he took a public stand against Trump when most of his party capitulated.
	That took courage.
	And unlike many Republicans who declared themselves to be never-Trumpers during the campaign, he still won today.
	In other words, Him yelling at Trump all the time?
	That's why we hired him.
	Tim is an insightful voice about what is broken in the Republican Party.
	He has repeatedly denounced racism and bigotry from Trump and other Republican politicians.
	But!
	When we read the New York Times story about Facebook's campaign to discredit its critics, we were surprised and angry about the role that Definer's Public Affairs, the firm Tim sometimes partners with, played in that effort.
	So Tim Miller, gone.
	The strange new respect the left feels for some people on the right lasts only so long as they believe that those people are tools of the left.
	The minute that those people suddenly become not tools of the left, then they have to be dumped on the side of the road as soon as possible.
	Okay, in other news, Things getting very, very dangerous over in Ukraine.
	According to the Kyiv Post, at an emergency meeting late on the night of November 25th, the military cabinet passed a resolution to impose martial law in Ukraine in the wake of an attack on and seizure of Ukrainian Navy boats by the Russian Coast Guard in the neutral waters of the Azov Sea on November 25th.
	President Petro Poroshenko said he would appeal to the Ukrainian Parliament on November 26th to approve his declaration of martial law, which could lead to widespread compulsory military service, restrictions on media and public demonstrations, and suspension of elections, among other measures.
	What exactly happened?
	Well, the Ukrainian Navy reported that the Russian Coast Guard boats opened fire on three Ukrainian boats in the Azov Sea on the evening of November 25th.
	After Russian officials announced they had trespassed its territorial waters, the Kerch Strait, the strait connecting the Black Sea and the Azov Sea, has been closed off for all non-military vessels.
	In a shootout, Ukraine's small armored artillery boats sustained damage and were mobilized.
	The Ukrainian tugboat had been rammed by a Russian Coast Guard ship Don earlier in the morning.
	All three vessels were seized by a Russian special ops unit.
	This is essentially an act of war, and it looks like things could get violent.
	It could get violent.
	Very quickly here.
	Ukraine has demanded that Russia release sailors and ships as the tensions are getting worse.
	And there's been a call for a UN Security Council resolution, which isn't going to happen, obviously, because Russia actually sits on the UN Security Council.
	So all of this is getting very dire, and the possibility of a new war between Ukraine and Russia is certainly on the horizon here.
	It's one of the reasons why it's been a mistake for the President of the United States to poo-poo with NATO and suggest that NATO is no longer necessary.
	All that does is give all sorts of credence to the Russian aggression in the region.
	I said this when Obama was president.
	I'll say it again when Trump is president.
	The Russian policy has basically been push until you hit steel, right?
	It's been true since Stalin.
	You just keep pushing until you finally hit the wall.
	And right now they found no wall.
	And Russia has been piecemealing Parts of Eastern Europe, they've grabbed obviously Crimea, they invaded Georgia during the Bush administration, and there's been no strong response from the American administration, whether it was Bush or Obama, and now it's up to President Trump to issue a stronger response saying NATO will defend Ukrainian territory if Ukrainian territory is in fact attacked.
	Now, do we want to be in a shooting war?
	No, but that's the whole reason of having deterrence.
	The whole reason of having deterrence is that if you keep backing off your point, if you keep backing off the line, the Russians will keep pushing to the point where you actually do reach a line that cannot be crossed.
	It's all fun and games appeasement until it turns out that you can no longer appease.
	You actually have to fight back.
	So for all the folks who are more isolationists in the Republican Party, understand, if you don't want to go to war, you have to stand up on your hind legs and threaten to go to war sometimes.
	You actually do.
	It can't just be that you are there only to defend your vital interests because that means that your vital interests will be attacked sooner rather than later.
	Everyone's going to assume that you won't even defend those, especially if you can't even define what those vital interests are in the first place.
	Okay, time for some things that I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	Over the weekend, I read a good new novel by a guy named Seth Greenland.
	He's a TV writer and he's definitely on the political left.
	The book is called The Hazards of Good Fortune and it's sort of like a weaker version of Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities.
	The basic plot is that there's this Jewish basketball team owner who is secular Jew.
	His daughter has obviously become extraordinarily politically radical, as you would expect, and gender-fluid, as you would also expect, and all the rest of it.
	And he is also struggling with racial politics on his team and struggling with his wife.
	The book itself is a really good trick.
	It's one of the funniest things is that when the left critiques the shortcomings of the left, it sounds very right wing.
	This book was certainly not meant to be right wing.
	It is, in fact, however, a very right wing book, because this book basically is about the shortcomings of a secular Jewish lifestyle that has no connection to heritage, history or religion, and how that ends with people trying to appease groups they can't appease, how it ends with people You know, trying to fulfill social justice warrior standards that they can never fulfill.
	And how, if you have no standards for your own kids, then your kids end up having different standards for you to which you will always fall short.
	The book is worth reading.
	The Hazards of Good Fortune.
	It's a very quick read.
	It's juicy and pulpy.
	Larry David recommends it because it is funny.
	It does have a couple of scenes that are pretty funny.
	So check it out.
	Seth Greensland's The Hazards of Good Fortune.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez continues to make headlines again.
	The only reason we cover her is because the left has declared her a very important human.
	And this means that we must cover her because we cover that which is very important.
	She tweeted out over the weekend, insurance groups are recommending GoFundMe as official policy or customers can die if they can't raise the goal in time.
	But sure, single payer health care is unreasonable.
	And then she tweeted out a photo of a letter received by a person who'd been denied certain health care coverage and urged to start a GoFundMe.
	This led a doctor named Nikki Johnson This tweet actually is representative of the ignorance of many legislators, not just Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	The vast majority of them do not understand healthcare or health insurance and definitely not the practice of medicine.
	Yet they make laws about it and some want government to run it.
	And she talks specifically in this particular case about how this letter is not coming, in fact, from an insurance group.
	This is actually coming from a Medicaid group.
	This is actually coming from a sponsored government group that basically had a board that denied people the immunosuppressive medication necessary for a heart transplant.
	For example, so this is not in fact coming from a private insurance company.
	And yet it was being treated that way by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because obviously everything that's bad is the private market and everything that's good is the public market.
	Even though denials of coverage in single payer states and nationalized health care states are extraordinarily regular, you're waiting in line for coverage for Surgeries for years and years and years.
	And at the more expensive end of the scale, you simply don't get drugs sometimes.
	It's not like they have an unlimited amount of money to spend.
	They simply don't.
	Which is why the five-year cancer survival rates in the United States are the highest of any industrialized country.
	It is also why if you remove homicide and car crash deaths from the American death rolls, And what you see is that America's life expectancy is actually higher than any other industrialized country, which is a much better reflection of our health care status.
	The idea that America is a great outlier when it comes to health care, that we suck all this much, we got serious problems in the American health care system.
	But you actually have to understand that health care system before you can before you can hone in on what those problems are.
	OK, other things that I hate today.
	So, John Kasich.
	Oh, God, no.
	Please, God, no.
	Not John Kasich.
	Governor of Ohio.
	He says that maybe he wants to run.
	Now, John Kasich, in preparation for his run, just vetoed again the fetal heartbeat bill that would protect the lives of babies in the womb once they have a heartbeat, which is presumably around nine, ten weeks when it's detectable.
	Anyway, here is John Kasich saying maybe he'll run for president because Who wants him to run?
	Well, John Kasich wants him to run.
	Who will vote for John Kasich?
	Well, John Kasich will vote for John Kasich.
	But, here's why this is... I'll explain why this is such a dumb idea in just a second.
	How seriously are you thinking about taking it on this time?
	Very seriously.
	I'm considering it, George.
	These are earnest conversations that go on virtually every day with some of my friends, with my family.
	Look, we need different leadership.
	There isn't any question about it.
	And I'm not only just worried about the tone and the name-calling and the division in our country and the partisanship, but I also worry about the policies.
	Hey, the man who strongly resembles a piece of wad up paper that you dropped in your pocket and then went through the washing machine, now says that he is worried about the tone in our politics.
	I mean, John Kasich, by the way, has said some pretty nasty things to a wide variety of people.
	He said that failing to expand government in the state of Ohio was anti-biblical.
	A pretty amazing statement.
	And of course, vetoed the fetal heartbeat bill the other day.
	Curious why this is a dumb idea.
	And it would be a dumb idea even if it were coming from somebody I actually liked and not John Kasich.
	I think John Kasich's a schmuck.
	Put that aside.
	Even if it were coming from somebody that I actually like.
	Let's say that, or Mike Lee, or Ben Sasse, or Ted Cruz, or somebody who I think would be a great president, who was running against Trump.
	Here's why this is a bad idea.
	Trump has a high level of support inside the Republican Party.
	Anyone who runs against Trump will immediately be othered.
	If a quote-unquote true con were to run against Trump, all that would do would be to alienate everyone who supports Trump from those true con positions, because as we know, Trump is not an ideologue.
	He is happy to attack conservative positions if he thinks it will get him ahead in the polls.
	And a lot of his followers are willing to temporarily put aside those conservative positions because Trump is actually a pretty good tool for policy on a bunch of various areas.
	Running against Trump would lead to the false perception inside the Republican Party that conservatism is dead, when in fact it's just that a lot of people are personally loyal to the President of the United States and believe that he is doing some good things and will back him over a more conservative candidate.
	The fact that a more conservative candidate will get, you know, 10% of the vote will then be used by the media to proclaim that conservatism is dead, populism is on the rise.
	I would prefer the reality to continue to be the reality, which is that there are a lot of conservatives who support Trump.
	There are a lot of non-conservatives who support Trump.
	Trump is the president.
	He'll run for re-election.
	He'll get the nomination.
	I see no purpose in ceaselessly and needlessly polarizing the party around a fake A fake gap between populist and conservative simply to assuage the ego of somebody like John Kasich.
	OK, final thing that I hate today.
	So people on the left are making a very big deal over a new government report that delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impact, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars or, in worst case scenario, more than 10 percent of its GDP by the end of the century.
	We've discussed this at length before.
	There are a couple of Nobel Prize winners in economics this year who talked about when in fact it would be worthwhile for us to start investing in various forms of attempting to curb climate change, particularly carbon credits.
	Their estimate was it would only start being profit neutral once the climate was expected to warm more than 3.5 degrees Celsius.
	That is a very large change in terms of the temperature.
	Kind of overweening despair that you are seeing by folks on the left.
	Climate change is happening.
	We're all going to die.
	Not only are we all going to die, it's going to destroy the economy.
	You know what else would destroy the economy like right now?
	You want to destroy more than 10% of GDP like right now?
	Institute a massive carbon credits regime and regulate all of the industries that actually drive America's energy industry.
	By the way, the idea that carbon emissions are chiefly coming from the United States is a lie.
	Last year, the United States was the number one country on planet Earth in reducing carbon emissions.
	Other countries that are developing, like China and India, are mostly responsible for the increasing carbon emissions.
	They are signatories to the Paris Accords, but the Paris Accords are dumb because the Paris Accords basically say that China has no obligation to cut emissions until 2030, which means that they're going to continue emitting at extraordinarily rapid rates, even as the US's additional technology and wealth allow us to take environmentalism more seriously.
	That's not stopping the left, though, from saying that climate change is going to kill everyone, we're all going to die, and we'll pretend there are no downsides to any of this stuff, even as there are riots in Paris.
	There are riots happening in Paris.
	Frank Buehler, this is according to the Agence France-Presse, Frank Buehler is a leader of the protesters who have barricaded French highways over the past week.
	He aims to color Paris in the movement's trademark yellow on Saturday, when rural France takes its fight with President Emmanuel Macron to the Capitol.
	What exactly are they fighting?
	Well, he's a member of the right-wing Stand Up France party.
	Buehler has watched in horror as fuel prices soared in the past years, driving up the cost of his commute to work in the rural southwestern Tarn-et-Garonne region.
	He said, I spent between one and two months wages on fuel.
	He says that this is because of anti-pollution taxes.
	It's because of carbon credits.
	So there are, in fact, a bunch of serious consequences to taking the sort of action folks on the left are urging.
	A 23% rise in the price of diesel in the past year is what has happened in France.
	The government has linked the price surge to world oil prices, but the yellow vest accused Macron of punishing motorists while slashing taxes on business and the wealthy.
	Basically, there's a massive gas tax in France, and a lot of it has to do with attempts to fulfill the pledges of the climate accords.
	If we actually want to have an intelligent conversation about climate change, we have to recognize carbon taxes actually have downsides.
	And we also have to recognize that carbon taxes on industrialized countries like France and the United States are not going to stop carbon emissions from China and India.
	And then, perhaps we have to figure out how exactly we spur innovation without attempting to destroy jobs and destroy lives all over the world.
	But this is a conversation people don't want to have, they want it to boil down to, you either don't take climate change seriously if you don't want to massively destroy the world economy and tax people to death, or you take climate change, or you deny science.
	Listen, I'm not denying climate change is happening.
	I'm not even denying that man is a main cause of that climate change.
	I'm questioning whether the extent of the climate change necessitates the kind of precipitous action folks on the left want to take.
	I'm asking at what point we should start taking more severe action, how that action actually correlates with an attempt to reduce the climate, and is it possible that free market solutions still provide a better option since, again, natural gas replacing coal has been mainly the driver of emissions coming down in the United States over the past several years.
	OK, we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
	I'm sure there will be plenty more news because we're back in the news cycle.
	Hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving Day weekend.
	I'm gonna go home, check on my wife, make sure she's doing OK.
	I'll catch you later.
	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.

▲