All Episodes
Feb. 7, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:03
We’re Not In Kansas Anymore, Virginia | Ep. 712
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Virginia implodes, Democratic presidential candidates drop like flies, and the specter of socialism looms.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Oh man, I have sitting right here before me the draft Green New Deal from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
I could not be more excited to explain to you how she's going to completely rewrite the American economy, revitalize America's industry.
It's so good, man.
It is so good.
Plus, Beto O'Rourke, there's an article about him in the New York Times, and man, It's groovy and everything.
It's unbelievable.
But we'll get to all that in just a second.
First, let's talk about what you're doing for Valentine's Day.
So you know what the best Valentine's Day gift ever would be?
Sherry's Berries.
I am not kidding you.
Okay, so Sherry's Berries has kosher goods.
And very often we have advertisers on the program who have stuff that is not kosher.
And so I talk about how people in the office like it because people in the office tell me how great it is.
But When it comes to Sherry's Berries, they actually have some kosher stuff, so we got a box of Sherry's Berries at the office.
And I started eating this stuff.
I am now 1,000 pounds.
This stuff is UNBELIEVABLE.
You're never gonna go wrong with their signature dipped Valentine's strawberries.
Dipped in milk, dark or white chocolatey goodness for any discerning palate.
She will fall in love with every bite.
Topped with decadent toppings, chocolate chips, heart and glitter sparkles.
It's Valentine's Made Easy.
They arrive fresh with 100% Sherry's Berries Guarantee.
They ship anywhere nationally.
Give sweet somethings to your long-distance love.
Valentine's Day is directly around the corner.
Send her the Valentine's gift of her dreams at the price of your dreams starting at $19.99 plus shipping and handling, which is a great combo.
You're sending something awesome and it doesn't cost you a lot of money, which means that she's gonna love you and you won't be broke.
It's amazing.
Plus, order now!
And make this Valentine's really special by getting double the berries for just $10 more.
Go to berries.com, click on the microphone, enter promo code BENSHOW at checkout.
That is berries.com.
B-E-R-R-I-E-S.com.
Click the microphone, enter code BENSHOW at checkout.
It is just awesome sauce.
Berries.com, enter code BENSHOW for the special deal.
It is so good.
Okay, so, we begin today with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
We'll get to Virginia in just a second.
Don't worry, I'll give you all the updates.
But, just recently, breaking news!
She has released a brand new plan.
A Green New Deal plan that changes America forever.
Because she's a fresh face.
So fresh, so face.
Alexander Ocasio-Cortez got in a Twitter fight with my business partner Jeremy Boring last night.
Jeremy made the point on Twitter that I had made yesterday on the show because we steal from each other on a routine basis.
That's why we make great business partners.
He made the point that she is in fact not a victim while she has been claiming to be a victim and cheering herself for being a woman in Congress.
And she tweeted something back about how The fact that she is the only 29-year-old bartender in Congress means that Congress is just not representative, which makes no sense at all, by the way, because if we were just to take a demographic breakdown out of like 500 people, how many are 29-year-old bartenders?
Maybe one?
Out of 500 people across America?
I don't think the demographics work out that way.
Also, it doesn't make any sense to suggest that the American Congress is supposed to be broken down demographically akin to the American population, because we have majoritarian voting in the United States.
53% of voters in the United States are women, which means that if women voted as a bloc, everyone in Congress would be a woman.
So, that's not how voting works, that's not how representation works, but AOC doesn't know things.
But she has great fashion sense, and she can make stuff in an instant pot, and she's sassy.
So that's all that counts.
And now, she has a brilliant new Green New Deal plan.
It is so brilliant that even people on the left are laughing at it today because it's just absurd.
So she has now released her Green New Deal plan.
Here's the overview.
I love it so much.
It's so great, because this is the future, guys.
And if you don't embrace the future, it's because you're afraid of the future.
Like, unbelievable.
You're unbelievably afraid of the future.
Like, if people would just think, like, about 20 years, like, down the line, then they would know that, like, this is what we have to, like, do.
Anyway, here's what she says.
Quote.
We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution.
Important to say, so someone else can't claim this mantle.
It says that right at the top of the overview, so that's pretty great.
Lachlan Markey over at... I'm trying to remember which publication he's with right now.
He has this story.
It says, this is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.
The Green New Deal Resolution, a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War II to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all.
It will move America to 100% clean and renewable energy.
She's saying this over 10 years.
Create millions of family-supporting wage union jobs.
Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries.
You mean like all of the industries in the United States?
Literally all of them?
It says, ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate, and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities.
Build on FDR's second Bill of Rights by guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security.
So this is all part of her plan.
Everyone in the United States is going to have a job guaranteed by the federal government.
High quality education, including higher education and trade schools, guaranteed by the federal government.
Healthy food, clean air and water, and access to nature.
So I guess we're going to be busing people out to the forest.
High quality health care, guaranteed by the federal government.
Safe, affordable, adequate housing, guaranteed by the federal government.
An economic environment free of monopolies.
And economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.
Unwilling to work!
Economic security for people who don't even want to work, who just want to sit around all day watching reruns of the Golden Girls.
Economic security provided by the federal government for those people.
This is part of the Green New Deal plan.
Now, you may think that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
What?
We're just getting started, guys.
I mean, this is just the beginning of the Green New Deal plan, which, as I say, is just spectacular.
It is just spectacular.
By the way, Glockland is a reporter for the Daily Beast.
It says in this outline, it says, there is no time to waste.
The IPCC report said global emissions must be cut by 40 to 60 percent by 2030.
U.S.
is 20 percent of total emissions.
We must get to zero by 2030 and lead the world in a global green new deal.
Now, again, this is forgetting the fact that all of the developing countries are providing the vast majority of actual greenhouse gas emissions on planet Earth and that they are increasing their emissions even as we cut our emissions.
And I love this.
She says, Americans love a challenge.
This is our moonshot.
Yeah, a couple of things about Americans love a challenge.
We do like a challenge.
You know what we don't like?
The challenge of burning our house down.
If somebody comes up to you on the street and like, you know what?
Challenge.
Go home, take kerosene, pour it all over your roof, and light a match.
We're like, yeah man, I love a challenge.
That's something I'm up for.
Someone comes up to you and, you know what?
I have a challenge for you.
I want you to take this baseball bat and beat the crap out of your car.
Just go smash those headlights, break the windshield, and while you're at it, make sure that you set that thing on fire, too.
Like, you know what?
I love a challenge.
That's my moonshot.
What she's talking about is a complete destruction of the American economy.
She's like, but Americans love a challenge.
We can do it, guys.
We totally can.
When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.
If Eisenhower, she released this, like they didn't even proofread it.
She says, if Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we'd pay for it.
Right, because you should always ask how you're going to pay for things.
That's like an important thing.
He says, When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War II, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him.
At the time, the U.S.
had produced 3,000 planes in the last year.
By the end of the war, we'd produced 300,000 planes.
That's what we are capable of if we have real leadership.
I'd like to see like one iota of evidence that people laughed at FDR.
When he said he wanted to build planes in the middle of a war.
Is there any evidence that that's true?
And then she says, this is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure.
This is my favorite part.
So we're going to destroy the entire economy.
We're going to guarantee jobs to everyone who is unwilling to work.
We're going to guarantee full scale health care, higher education and housing to everyone who is unwilling to work or unwilling to do anything.
But that's an investment in our economy and society.
It is not an expenditure.
Now, here's why she may be failing economics.
When you invest in things, there's usually a return on the investment.
When you expend on things, you are just trading your money for the thing.
Now, what she is doing is trading the money for the thing.
There is no return on this investment.
Because it's not an investment.
It's a political expenditure of money that is not hers.
But that's okay.
That's okay.
Okay, she says, we invested 40 to 50% of GDP into our economy during World War II and created the greatest middle class the US has ever seen.
No.
Okay, we invested...
So she is now citing wartime economic spending as a rationale for economic growth.
That is asinine.
You know what we did during World War II?
We took every male in the United States between the ages of 18 and 45, and we put them in barracks, and we had them live off rations, because we were in the middle of a war.
The economic growth that occurred in the aftermath of World War II was not caused by government expenditure.
Government expenditures decreased after World War II.
She says the interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost.
You know what would happen, by the way?
Everybody always loves to talk about the interstate highway system.
You know what would happen if there was no interstate highway system?
Nothing.
Really nothing.
What I mean by that is that Route 66 already existed.
All that would have happened is that states would have connected their highways.
What do these people think?
That the highways just would have ended at the state line?
That there just would have been like a bridge and then nothing?
They just would have said dead end at the end of the street?
She says this is massively expanding existing and building new industries at a rapid pace, growing our economy.
And then she says the Green New Deal has momentum.
92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans support the Green New Deal.
Right, because it doesn't mean anything until you said all this garbage.
Now that support level is going to go down to zero.
It gets better.
There's a bunch of frequently asked questions here.
And she says, Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable?
Are you saying we won't transition off fossil fuels?
Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases.
Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy.
Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won't build the new economy to replace it.
This is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically.
She says, we set a goal to get to net zero rather than zero emissions in 10 years because we aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.
Is she going to kill all the cows?
Because that's sad.
Right?
She says she wants to get rid of airplanes and also farting cows.
Is she going to give them all ex-lax?
How's this going to work?
She says, is nuclear a part of this?
She says, no, there will be no nuclear energy.
So only the most efficient source of energy known to man, nuclear power.
No, we're not going to end clean, by the way.
We're not going to do any of that.
So we're going to transition all of the energy away from fossil fuels.
But there will be no use of nuclear energy, which means that we will all blow into pinwheels, apparently, to produce all of our energies.
We will just train hamsters and they will run around on wheels.
And those wheels will power our new green economy.
Does this include a carbon tax?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the production of renewable energy industries and infrastructure.
We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers to figure out another way to get to work.
So we're not ruling a giant carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal.
While a carbon tax may apart, it misses the point it would be off the table unless we create clean affordable options first.
How about cap-and-trade?
Well, she says that there won't be cap-and-trade because that assumes that there's such a thing as a market, and we don't like markets, so no.
So, how is she gonna do any of this stuff?
This is where things get awesome.
So wait a second, wait until she gets to the... I love it so much.
She's just like, you know what we're gonna do?
We're gonna fix everything.
How are you gonna do it?
We just are.
Great plan.
Okay, well... Guys, stop asking questions.
She's a fresh face.
Very fresh and very face.
We'll get back to this in just a second.
I'm sorry, if this is the best... They're not sending their best.
They're not sending their best.
We have to shut the Democratic Party down until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
Okay, first, let's talk about how you protect your own home.
I'm trying to protect America from this nonsense, but you just want to protect your house from would-be burglars.
This is why you need Ring.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
So, if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, You will get an alert and be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone.
That's thanks to the HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
We have a Ring.com device at our house.
It allows me to know when somebody is ringing our doorbell, even if I'm 3,000 miles away.
And then if it's somebody who I don't want coming into the house, or I think they're dangerous, I can even call 911.
I mean, it's really great.
And they don't just do that.
They have all of these other devices that allow you to create a ring of security around your home.
As a listener, you have a special offer on a Ring Starter Kit available right now.
With a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight cam, the Starter Kit has everything you need to start building that ring of security around your home.
You should do it.
I certainly have.
I'm worried about home security a lot, and you should be, too.
Because, listen, break-ins happen.
And you really should be protected in the best possible way.
Go to ring.com slash Ben.
That is ring.com slash Ben.
Once again, ring.com slash Ben for your special deal.
Go check it out.
Ring.com slash Ben.
Okay.
Back to AOC's brilliant, fresh-faced new plan.
So how will you pay for it?
Right?
Good question.
Now, she already said that we're not supposed to ask that question because if we ask that question, it shows insufficient commitment.
Which is just what my wife says every time she asks me to buy her an expensive piece of jewelry.
And I say, well how much is it gonna cost?
She says, if you care how much it costs, well then you don't really love me.
Well, that's what AOC is doing right now.
We're like, well, this Green New Deal, like, you got any plan to pay for any of this stuff?
Like, at any point?
She's like, you don't love me enough.
You just don't.
If you really cared, you wouldn't ask such questions.
Says, how will you pay for it?
Hiroshi, this is so great.
The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout, and extended quantitative easing programs.
The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars.
So you still haven't given an answer because you know what that was?
Racking up federal debt.
That's when we racked up lots of federal debt right there.
It says the Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit.
Oh, so we'll actually even create banks run by the federal government to lend to the federal government paid for by the federal government with dollars that don't yet exist that we will get from other countries or will inflate our way.
This is good.
It's going to be brilliant.
There's no way this goes wrong.
At all.
She says, There's also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment.
So it won't just be the banks lending out, the federal banks lending out to capitalistic companies to build all this green new energy stuff.
We will have direct ownership in all of these things.
We will nationalize the energy industry.
Perfect!
You know where that worked awesome?
In Venice.
Wait.
Yeah, no.
My favorite line of the whole thing.
So great.
So, I mean, really.
Again, back to my wife and the jewelry.
This is me saying to her, so how much is it going to cost you?
for it but what we will do with our new shared prosperity my favorite line of the whole thing so great so i mean really again back to my wife and the jewelry this is me saying to her so how much is it going to cost you listen listen to me okay this This is not an expenditure.
This grows our wealth as a household.
The question is not how you're going to pay for this $100,000 necklace.
The question is what we should do with our new shared $100,000 necklace.
What the actual?
OK, but but it continues.
It continues.
I love her.
OK, I love when she gets to her actual goals, her resolution summary.
Her resolution summary is fan-freaking-tastic.
So again, we're talking about Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, so fresh, so face.
Her new Green New Deal plan, which is in line with all of her other statements in that it is fully idiotic.
She says, created in consultation with multiple groups from environmental community, environmental justice community, and labor community.
Five goals in 10 years.
Net zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.
Create millions of high wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all.
I like how that's just the goal.
We're just going to create these jobs and then everyone will have prosperity and economic security.
Well, now that you've articulated it that way, I think we're going to get there, guys.
I'm optimistic.
It says invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all.
Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities.
We're also going to stop racism with this, by the way.
Isn't that amazing?
All it took was AOC to come and say stuff and racism got solved, guys.
It was unreal.
So good.
And then she, like, oh my God.
Like, it's almost hard to believe that this is a thing that she actually is suggesting, right?
She suggests in this plan that there's a bigger plan that's also been put out, I believe, online.
And in this plan, she also suggests that we are going to get rid of cars, and we are going to get rid of airplanes, and replace it with trains.
I am not making this stuff up.
This is a real thing.
So NPR has a summary of the Green New Deal, and at the bottom line, and at the bottom of this summary of the Green New Deal, it says, a guaranteed job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security for every American.
It's all gonna be great, guys.
I totally, totally think it's gonna happen.
Also, she says that she wants to upgrade or replace every building in the country.
Every single one.
Which is repair and upgrade U.S.
infrastructure.
Upgrade or replace every building in the United States for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.
Okay.
Massively expand clean manufacturing.
Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable pollution and greenhouse gas free food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.
Totally over... This is the best part.
Totally overhaul transportation.
Ready for this one?
Here we go.
I swear, it's like leprechauns farting while riding unicorns across a rainbow sky.
That's what this is.
Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing.
Build charging stations everywhere.
Highly specific.
Everywhere.
Everywhere you look, there's a charging station.
You look in your closet, boom, charging station.
You go out on the street, boom, charging station.
You go over to the local Baskin Robbins, you open that door thinking you're gonna get a scoop of ice cream, boom, charging station.
Right in your grill, a charging station.
Build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.
Build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.
Sorry.
You know how many people go on airplanes?
You know what's the fun thing about airplanes, really?
You know what's one of the fun things?
They travel in the air.
They go real fast.
And they go from place to place.
And then they refuel and keep going.
You know what's one of the problems with trains?
They're on tracks.
The tracks can't swerve.
The tracks can't move.
The tracks are very stable.
Do you think that it would take longer to take a high-speed train from L.A.
to New York?
Or to take a plane from L.A.
to New York?
I'm sure this is going to go over great guns.
And we're going to be spending What trillions of dollars presumably to build high-speed trains from like in Japan Japan is the size of what it's smaller in California in Japan So she's talking about doing this across the country So every time I go from LA to Washington I think we should just get listen if we are really committed to the Green New Deal.
We need covered wagons That's what we need.
We need covered wagons and we need oxen not farting oxen just oxen We need fart-free oxen to take us in covered wagons across the country on high-speed trains.
That's what we need.
Powered.
Powered by love.
That's exactly what I need.
She says, we're going to create affordable public transit available to all with the goal to replace every combustion engine vehicle.
Every single one.
So those millions of combustion engine vehicles that are driving around right now, they'll all be gone within 10 years.
How?
Stop asking how.
That shows insufficient commitment.
Commit yourself.
Commit yourself to a Green New Deal or you don't care about Mother Earth.
Now, when asked about this, I am sure she will say that it is racist to ask about this.
She will suggest that it is very bad to talk in realistic terms about all of this.
It shows that we don't care enough.
Because this is always the response to people who have questions about stuff like this.
Whenever we talk about climate change.
And folks like me say, you know what?
I am perfectly willing.
To accept that man-made activity is responsible for a majority of the climate change that has occurred over the last century and a half.
Perfectly happy to suggest that that is the case because that seems to be a generalized scientific consensus.
All right, fine.
Now, what do you want to do about it?
And they're like, how dare you?
You're a climate change denier.
All I asked was, what do you want to do about it?
And you're like, stop asking that question.
It just shows that you don't want to do anything, which means you're a climate change denier.
This is the same thing.
Here's my Green New Deal.
It will provide free jobs to everyone, free healthcare to everyone, free ice cream to everyone, a pony, everything you ever wanted it will provide.
You're like, cool.
How?
Stop it.
Stop it.
You are not fresh-ed and face-ed enough to ask such questions.
So, this is the new... If this is the new Democratic Party, the world is stupid.
But we already knew that the world is stupid.
How stupid is the new Democratic Party?
The fresh faces of the Democratic Party?
And how... This is the party of science, by the way.
I've been reliably informed that this is the party of science.
The party that says that babies up to points of birth are not in fact babies, they are clusters of cells.
And also, that we can get rid of all planes in the United States via trains powered by unicorn crap.
Party of science, man.
Party of science.
We're going to get to more on the Democrats' party of science in just a second.
But first, let's talk about how you improve your business.
Let's say that you have an employee like AOC who presents you with business plans that make no sense at all.
And you're like, you know what?
I need a better employee than this.
Where should you look?
Probably should check out ZipRecruiter.
Hiring can be pretty time consuming.
You post a job to several online job boards only to get tons of the wrong resumes.
Then you have to sort through all of those resumes just to find a few people with the right skills and experience.
Those job sites that overwhelm you with the wrong resumes?
They're not smart.
Which is why you should do the smart thing and go to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
Unlike other job sites, ZipRecruiter finds qualified candidates for you.
Their powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education, and experience, and then actively invites them to apply to your job.
So you get qualified candidates fast.
It's no wonder that ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the United States.
That rating comes from hiring sites on Trustpilot with over a thousand reviews.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
If you love the show, show your support for it and ZipRecruiter by going to ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire, D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
All right, so the party of science that says green new deal, paid for by nothing, and also Babies don't exist.
Now is making the case, I kid you not, that men and women are biologically the same.
Not that gender is a social construct, disconnected from biology, but that biology suggests that men and women are exactly the same.
Who is saying this?
None other than another fresh face of the Democratic Party, so fresh, so face, Representative Ilhan Omar, Democratic Congresswoman from Minnesota.
She has now recommended that the Minnesota Attorney General, Keith Ellison, investigate USA Powerlifting for barring biological males from women's events.
Omar called it a myth.
A myth that men who identify as transgender women have a direct competitive advantage and copied Keith Ellison on the letter with a recommendation that they investigate this discriminatory behavior.
Omar sent her letter on behalf of J.C.
Cooper, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman and whom Omar identified as one of her constituents.
She signed the letter on January 31st, although it only became public on Tuesday after Cooper posted a picture to Instagram.
Here is what the letter said.
It said, In fact, just last month, a Minnesota jury awarded Ms.
Christina Ginther $20,000 after the Independent Women's Football League refused to allow her to participate because she is transgender.
I urge you to reconsider this discriminatory, unscientific policy and follow the example of the International Olympic Committee.
The myth that trans women have a direct competitive advantage is not supported by medical science, and it continues to stoke fear and violence against one of the most at-risk communities In the world.
So, in powerlifting, biological men who identify as women do not have an advantage over biological women who are women.
That's a myth.
Because... What?
What?
Like, really, men are only good for a couple of things.
One is hitting things and the other is picking up big objects.
Every so often we squash a bug.
That's pretty much what we're good for.
But according to Ilhan Omar, science suggests that men do not have a competitive advantage in power lifting.
We're not even talking about like ice skating.
We're talking about power lifting.
Party of science, man.
These folks are really on top of it.
You gotta admire the security of knowing that no matter what idiotic thing you say, the media will defend you.
I mean, how secure do you have to be to put out stupid ideas like this and know that the media are going to continue to call you a democratic fresh face filled with great ideas for the future of the country?
Putting out ideas like this and knowing, full scale, that the blowback is only going to come from conservatives and from people in media who don't happen to be motivated leftists, which is like five people.
It's gotta be great.
I mean, that's gotta be just a charmed life, doesn't it?
Those of us in the conservative commentariat, we spend every waking minute thinking about where the next attack is gonna come from, from the media, because this is what they do on a routine basis.
Every conservative politician thinks this way, too.
If you're a Democrat, basically, life is a musical.
You're walking around, people are dancing in the background, usually they're Washington Post reporters.
Every so often, Tom Hanks pops out of the woodwork to give you an endorsement.
It must just be fabulous.
Imagine that a Republican congressperson said half the things that Ilhan Omar had said.
Oh wait, we don't have to imagine.
Steve King did.
You know what happened?
He got destroyed by people, including people like me, on the conservative side of the aisle.
But if you're a Democrat, man, you can get away with pretty much any stupid idea you could possibly push.
It's really amazing.
And there is no— Here's the thing about being on the left.
There is no Overton window for the left.
There is no idea that it's too wild for the left to actually wrap its arms around and embrace, if only for a moment, have a one-night stand with.
The left will embrace any crazy idea.
So on the right, the Overton window is really small, and the left helps shrink the Overton window, so that if you say things like, Western civilization is superior to other civilizations, this may be outside the Overton window.
But, if like Farhad Manjoo, an opinion columnist at the New York Times, you write a column called, Abolish Billionaires, then total, that's inside the Overton window.
No problem at all.
This article says, Last fall, Tom Szoka, editor of the essential blog, HmmDaily, it's not that essential, nobody's heard of it, wrote a tiny, searing post that has been rattling around my head ever since.
There's not a lot in there, so, I mean, once there's, like, a thing in there, it just kind of rattles.
Some ideas about how to make the world better require careful, nuanced thinking about how to best balance competing interests, he began.
Others don't.
Billionaires are bad.
We should presumptively get rid of billionaires.
All of them.
You know who had this idea?
Stalin.
You can liquidate them and take their wealth.
That'd be one way of getting rid of billionaires, but that's not what they're talking about.
What they are talking about is kneecapping the wealthiest among us.
This is the language in the New York Times.
A billion dollars is wildly more than anyone needs, even accounting for life's most excessive lavishes.
It's far more than anyone might reasonably claim to deserve, however much he believes he has contributed to society.
Again, you don't seize wealth for yourself, you idiots.
You don't become a billionaire by saying, you know what?
Today, got up in the morning, decided I'm gonna be a billionaire.
And then you just go out and you steal people's wallets until you're a billionaire.
That's not how being a billionaire works.
Unless you're a socialist, in which case you could do that, right?
I mean, if you're like Hugo Chavez, you can make yourself a billionaire just by seizing everybody else's wealth.
So, I guess for socialists who believe that all economics is a zero-sum game, the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting other people.
But for those of us who live in a free market world of free exchange and mutual labor exchanges, You become a billionaire by engaging in lots of voluntary transactions with people who want the thing you are providing.
But apparently this is immoral.
That's immoral.
Now, what makes transaction one different morally from transaction one million morally?
What, really, what is the moral difference between Burger King selling its first hamburger and Burger King selling its one millionth hamburger?
The answer is nothing.
It's the exact same transaction.
There is no moral difference.
But for the left, with every incremental sale of a burger that makes the people who own Burger King richer, it becomes a less moral act to sell the burger to a willing customer.
That's nuts.
So here's what Farhad Manjoo, again, the New York Times editorial board, my goodness, what a repository of idiocy.
They say, at some level of extreme wealth, money inevitably corrupts.
Why don't you tell us which level?
Which level makes you corrupt?
I've had money.
I've had not a lot of money.
When did I become corrupt?
When did... I mean, I know several billionaires, by the way.
When did they become corrupt?
Some are great, some are jackasses.
Just like every other human being.
When does poverty corrupt?
Because I've heard it both ways.
So apparently, if you're too wealthy, then you're corrupt.
And if you're too poor, you're corrupt because you're poor.
So if you're too wealthy, you're corrupt because at a certain point, that 10 millionth dollar made you corrupt and evil.
Unless you're Oprah, in which case you're awesome.
Accept Oprah from this.
Exempt Oprah.
But if you're poor, if you don't have enough money, that also makes you commit crimes and mistreat women and knock people up and all this.
In a second, we're going to talk about abolishing billionaires.
Again, this is the new Democratic Party, man.
Wow.
Wow.
No wonder people voted for Trump just to stop this nonsense.
We're going to talk about that in a second.
First, we need to talk about you saving money.
So you live in the real world where money doesn't grow on trees and you can't just magically transform airplanes into magical trains that travel high speed across the country.
You need to save the money you have.
And this is why you need to be using Honey.
Everyone should be able to agree about this, regardless of politics.
With millions of sellers on Amazon selling the same products, how do you know if you're really getting the best price?
You don't, unless you use Honey.
As you shop on Amazon, Honey's Best Price Finder automatically compares the prices of millions of sellers that carry the item you want.
Honey even factors in shipping, sales tax, and Amazon Prime status to make sure that you are getting the lowest total price.
It shows you the best deal every time, even if Amazon doesn't.
It's like having your very own Smart shopping assistant.
I love Honey.
I use it for every purchase that I make.
I've saved a bunch of money at various sites around the internet.
Every time you hit a checkout box, like you don't have to start the site every time.
It just runs in the background.
Every time you check out on a site.
Honey immediately scans the internet to make sure that you are getting the best deal.
More than 10 million people are using Honey to save money, so next time you are shopping on Amazon, treat yourself to a free upgrade that guarantees you always get the absolute best price.
Add Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
That is joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Go check it out.
Honey, the smart shopping assistant that helps you save time and money.
Joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Go check that out.
Right this very instant.
We will get back into the stupidity of abolishing billionaires.
And as I can first go over, subscribe at dailywire.com.
For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
When you do, you get the rest of the show live, you get the rest of Clayton's show live, Knowles' show live, two additional hours of me a day.
Look at me.
I'm run down because of you people.
I'm providing you like four or five hours of content a day, much of it behind the paywall.
The least you could do is engage with our live radio show every afternoon.
That's all we ask.
And then you can ask questions of me during the breaks.
And we can talk.
We can become friends.
I'll come to your birthday party, maybe.
Probably not, but maybe.
You never know.
You can go check that out for $9.99 a month or $99 a year, which is cheaper.
If you do the math, if you actually know how to do math, unlike Democrats, then you would know that $99 a year is cheaper than $9.99 a month if you were to prorate that over the course of the year.
Right, you see how that works?
Because it's basic, simple division.
You also get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
Look at how the light glints off the silvery letters of the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler, etched, hand-etched by blind nuns in the Alps.
It's just incredible.
Go check that out right now, Leftist Tears Hot or Cold.
You get that when you get the annual subscription.
Also check us out at YouTube and iTunes because we have things like the Sunday Special.
This Sunday we have on famed actor Gary Sinise.
He stops by.
Lieutenant Dan from Forrest Gump.
We chat about everything art, movie, play, and military related because he has a brand new book out and he is one of the great pro-military voices in the country right now.
So stop by on Sunday for that particular conversation.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So back to Farhad Manjoo.
He's making the case that we should abolish billionaires.
We should do away with the kulaks.
He says that some extreme level of wealth money inevitably corrupts.
He says, I cover technology.
An industry that belches up a murder of new billionaires annually.
Because that's what happens.
That's how millionaires and billionaires are created.
Is that the earth just belches them forth.
Like the Uruk-hai from Lord of the Rings.
Just sort of the earth opens and Mark Zuckerberg springs out.
Now if that were the case, I too would be horrified.
But that is not actually how billionaires are made.
He says, Much of my career has required a deep anthropological inquiry into billionairedom, but I'm embarrassed to say I had never before considered the idea that if we aimed through public and social policy simply to discourage people from attaining and possessing more than a billion in lucre, just about everyone would be better off.
In my defense, back in October, abolishing billionaires felt way out there.
It sounded radical, impossible, maybe even un-American.
But it is an illustration of the political precariousness of billionaires that the idea has since become something like mainline thought on the progressive left.
Yes, it does demonstrate that you are all nuts, that you have all lost your freaking minds, that whatever moral fiber you had has been Crapped out and it flushed away into the sea.
My goodness!
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are floating new taxes aimed at the super-rich.
Representative AOC, who also favors higher taxes on the wealthy, has been making a moral case against the existence of billionaires.
No, she hasn't.
She just says it's immoral for a society to have billionaires.
Also, we're going to need these billionaires to turn over a bunch of their money every year and continue to produce all of that money so that we can pay for all of my garbage programs.
Farhad Manjoo says, Now, has he even made the case why they shouldn't exist?
Now, has he even made the case why they shouldn't exist?
Or is it just like, I don't like that people have lots of money?
So far, I have not heard any case why billionaires should not exist, because you have to make a case that billionaires should not exist, while at the same time maintaining that free market exchange that betters everyone who is involved is good.
You cannot have those two things at the same time.
Either I am in control of my labor and my time and my goods and my services, or I am not.
If you suggest that it is good for me to do all of those things up to the point where I make a lot of money, then what you are really saying is that it is not good for me to do all of those things beyond a certain point.
The transactions become a net negative beyond a certain point.
Which closes down productivity, which prevents free exchange, which makes goods and services more expensive.
I mean, this is basic.
Forget econ 101.
This is basic morality and basic human logic.
But those have gone out the window a long time ago.
This is billionaire abolition.
First of all, this is billionaire abolishment.
He means abolition could take many forms.
It could mean preventing people from keeping more than a billion in booty, but more likely it would mean higher marginal taxes on income, wealth and estates for billionaires and people on the way to becoming billionaires.
Those policies ideas turn out to pull very well, even if they're probably not actually redistributive enough to turn billionaires into sub billionaires.
Well, shock, when you pull idiots about whether to take other people's money, everybody's like, yeah, and most people are kind of idiots.
It's actually just across the aisle.
Everybody's stupid.
And if you pull if you pull me on, should we take my business partners money?
I happen to like my business partner, but if I did not, I'd be like, sure.
If you poll me, on just a base id level, should we take all the money away from, like, Jane Fonda?
Yeah, why not, man?
But on a moral level, no, you shouldn't take away Jane Fonda's money, even if she's a disgrace to her fame.
More important, says Farhad Manjoo, aiming to abolish billionaires would involve reshaping the structure of the digital economy so that it produces a more equitable ratio of the super-rich to the rest of us.
Inequality is the defining economic condition of the tech age.
We're seeing these effects now.
A few superstar corporations, many in tech, account for the bulk of American corporate profits, while most of the share of economic growth since the 70s has gone to a small number of the country's richest people.
Also, you get a lot of great stuff, and you, Farhad Manjoo, get to write for a living on a computer provided by somebody else, on a program provided by somebody else, using an internet that is, presumably, you're sending your columns in via Google.
All of this is idiocy.
It's just idiocy.
As Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez put it in a conversation with Ta-Nehisi Coates, I'm not saying that Bill Gates or Warren Buffett are immoral, but a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don't have access to public health is wrong.
I love that he quotes that and then he has to say in parentheses, she meant hookworm.
She later corrected.
Right, because she's dumb and the entire statement is dumb.
I love this.
Last week to dig into this question of whether it was possible to be a good billionaire, I called up two experts.
I love this.
The first was Peter Singer, the Princeton moral philosopher who has written extensively about the ethical duties of the rich.
Mr. Singer told me that in general, he did not think it was possible to live morally as a billionaire, although he made a few exceptions.
Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett, who have pledged to give away the bulk of their wealth to philanthropy, would not earn Mr. Singer's score.
I think we should totally take Peter Singer's word for it.
You know why?
Because Peter Singer's other famous ethical position is that you should be able to kill babies until they reach a point of sentience.
Meaning you should be able to kill newly born infants until they hit like two or three years old.
I am not making that up.
That is Peter Singer's actual position.
We should definitely take his advice on destroying billionaires, taking away their wealth, and preventing economic growth that has accrued largely to the world's poorest.
Let's be real about this.
In our lifetimes, we have watched the abolition, not of billionaires, but of global extreme poverty.
That is a result of free market capitalism.
But Peter Singer says different.
And man, that guy knows stuff.
I mean, he's fine with like Spartan killing babies.
Whatever, man.
So he quotes Peter Singer, and then he quotes writer Anand Garadharadas, who I've never heard of.
He says, many billionaires approach philanthropy as a kind of branding exercise to maintain a system in which they get to keep their billions.
So in other words, if a billionaire gives charity, it's inherently bad, unless they have intent.
So now we're going to explore their intent, but we're not going to suggest that billionaires themselves are bad, generally, without exploring their intent, but they are bad generally without exploring their intent.
And then he says his second expert on the subject is Tom Steyer.
OK, Tom Steyer is a Democratic idiot who has tried multiple times to launch a run for presidency, but no one wants to hear from him because he is terrible.
Mr. Steyer ticks every liberal box.
He favors a wealth tax.
He and his wife have signed the Giving Pledge.
He doesn't live excessively lavishly.
He drives a Chevy Volt.
Still, I wondered when I got on the phone with him last week.
Wouldn't we be better off if we didn't have to worry about rich people like him trying to alter the political process?
Mr. Steyer was affable and loquacious.
He spoke to me for nearly an hour about his interest in economic justice and his belief in grassroots organizing.
I'm sure he did.
He has nothing better to do.
Literally no one wants to hear from him except for you, Farhad Manjoo.
He says, at one point, I compared his giving with that of the Koch brothers, and he seemed genuinely pained by the comparison.
I understand about the real issue of money in politics, he said.
We have a system I know is not right, but it's the one we got, and we're trying as hard as possible to change it.
I admire his zeal.
But if we tolerate the supposedly good billionaires in politics, we inevitably leave open the door for the bad ones.
And the bad ones will overrun us.
When American capitalism sends us its billionaires, it's not sending its best.
It's sending us people who have lots of problems.
And they're bringing those problems with them.
They're bringing inequality.
They're bringing injustice.
And they're buying politicians.
And some, I assume, are good people.
What a bunch of moral drivel.
Welcome to the new left.
This is the new left.
Just... just incredible.
Just...
I mean, what do you say to the base root immorality of all of this?
The idea that you're going to completely restructure people's lives against their will because you know better than they do, and in the process make people poorer.
Because let's face it, if you start creating disincentives for people to become rich, they are not going to want to do the work to become rich.
So you want to abolish billionaires and also make it free not to work.
Makes perfect sense.
None of this is going to go wrong in any way.
Okay, meanwhile, let's get to the political controversies of the day because these big ideas, I think, are in fact more important, but the political controversies of the day remain.
Virginia continues to be a disaster area with the top three Democrats in the Democratic Party enmeshed in controversy.
You've got Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, Who was in a blackface controversy from 1985 and that was directly after saying he's fine with killing babies.
Democrats fine with baby killing.
Very, very upset at the blackface controversy from 1985.
Then you've got Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax enmeshed in a sexual assault scandal.
One problem, there's no actual corroborating evidence at this point, but that's not the standard for Democrats.
They say that believe all women.
So if that's the case, he's gone too.
And then you've got the Attorney General Mark Herring, who came forward and said in 1980, when he was 19, he dressed up as a rapper and darkened his face to do so.
By his own standard, he said that Ralph Northam had to leave.
By his own standard, he has to leave too.
But none of them are going to leave because the idea that this is a deep matter of principle goes out the window of a Republican were to actually take that slot, which the next person in line is a Republican.
So all of that is hilarious.
We'll keep an eye on it as it develops over the course of the day.
In the end, no one's going to leave.
Everybody will just shy it off.
People will say that, you know, this may be bad, but what would be worse is having a Republican in office.
So, principle lasting just as far as the edges of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, Democratic contender after Democratic contender falling like flies.
My goodness.
So, Elizabeth Warren, yesterday, got herself in some trouble because it turned out, over the last couple of days, that she'd actually filled out official forms claiming that she was a Native American.
Then yesterday, she says, well, maybe I identified as an American Indian on other applications.
Hmm, just as we have suspected, Senator Warren.
It's important to note, I'm not a tribal citizen, and I should have been more mindful of the distinction with tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty.
And that is why I apologized to Chief Baker, and why I've made a very public apology.
It was based on my understanding from my family's stories, but family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship.
Okay, and then she was asked, well, did you do this on other forms?
and she was like, hmm.
So, by the way, if you have like a, who does that?
Who's like, you know, my family story is that once a long time ago, there was a member of our family who was filling the race.
Therefore, I put it on a government form.
Who does that?
Really, is that a thing?
I've never heard of that before.
Frankly, that seems to me a lot worse than what the Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring did when he dressed up as a rapper in 1980.
I am finding it amusing that all of these members of the left media are now suggesting that dressing up as a celebrity who was black is a very bad thing, but Joy Behar can stay, Tom Hanks can stay, Sarah Silverman can stay, Jimmy Kimmel can stay.
All these folks can stick around, even though they all did this.
They can all stay, but Megyn Kelly had to lose her job because she might have mentioned at one point the actual reality that there is a difference in intent between someone who dresses up as Diana Ross and Al Jolson singing Mammy in blackface in a minstrel show in 1917.
So, Megyn Kelly said a thing, Joy Behar did it, and showed it on air in 2016, no problem.
No, there's no double standard with regard to these things at all.
And meanwhile, Amy Klobuchar, who was kind of the great moderate hope for people who are not insane in the Democratic Party, she's already getting slammed with oppo.
At least three people have withdrawn from consideration to lead Senator Klobuchar's nascent 2020 presidential campaign, and have done so in part because of the Minnesota Democrat's history of mistreating her staff, according to the Huffington Post.
Klobuchar, who plans to make an announcement about a potential presidential bid on Sunday in Minneapolis, has spent the past several months positioning herself to run for president.
She's beloved in her state as a smart, funny, personable lawmaker and has gained national attention, but...
Some former Klobuchar staffers, all of whom spoke to Huffington Post on condition of anonymity, described Klobuchar as habitually demeaning and prone to bursts of cruelty that make it difficult to work in her office for long.
So, we bid a fond farewell to Amy Klobuchar before she even launches her campaign.
Everything is going great inside the Democratic Party primaries.
All good stuff all the way across the board.
So, Elizabeth Warren out.
Amy Klobuchar in trouble.
Cory Booker, idiot.
So I guess he'll stick around for a while.
Obviously, Kamala Harris is the person who is leading at the, at the, in the clubhouse turn.
It is, it is Kamala Harris in the lead by a fairly large stretch.
Joe Biden may jump in at any minute.
That will shake up the race a little bit, but it is pretty obvious this is going to be a vicious primary, and that will make it really amusing to watch.
I mean, I'm looking forward to that part, aren't you?
Alrighty, time for some things that I like, and then we'll get to some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
There's a piece of art from 1818 that is considered sort of the, the, Enlightenment view of humanity, and I kind of love it.
It's a piece by Caspar David Friedrich.
It's from 1818.
It's called Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog.
If you can't see it, you can look it up online later or subscribe and then you'll be able to see it.
It's a picture of a man standing over a valley with fog all the way into the distance receding.
And this is sort of the idea that human beings have the capacity to reach a summit and then gaze out over the misty recesses of the universe.
And we can't fully understand it, but it's our idea, it's our job to try and know.
It's our job to try and know.
That is an idea that is steeped in biblical thinking.
Now, there's a lot of folks who think that the Enlightenment was a complete break from biblical thinking, that it was a rejection of the Bible, it was reason over revelation and all the rest of that.
That is simply not true.
It's simply not true.
There was an Enlightenment that was sort of the French Enlightenment, and then there was the Scottish slash British slash American Enlightenment, which continued to hold fast to the generalized values of the Bible, the idea of human beings having free will, the ideas of human beings have a duty to explore the universe, the sort of Francis Bacon, Thomas Aquinas ideas that you were supposed to merge the sort of Francis Bacon, Thomas Aquinas ideas that you were supposed to merge science with a belief in and And it's that view that has characterized the West.
This piece, I think, is maybe the best characterization of the view of what human beings are in the West.
I love it.
In fact, I love it so much that I had somebody paint a riff on it for me, except using this as the basis for a biblical painting of Moses standing over the land of Israel right before his death, before God takes him.
God chose him the entire land of Israel, so I had this painting done with Moses looking over the land of Israel and seeing the future sort of recede into the distance.
Pretty cool.
Alrighty, other things that I like.
So I talked about this a little bit on my radio show yesterday.
You should subscribe so that you can hear that live, right?
We do two hours every afternoon.
But, in case you missed it, I want to recap it for you.
There is one of my favorite pieces in all of New York Times history over at the New York Times.
It's about Betta.
Betta Rourke.
Now, you know how much I enjoy Beto O'Rourke as a candidate.
What I enjoy most about Beto O'Rourke as a candidate is that he never really progressed beyond being the douchebag in high school who would strum three chords on the guitar and all the girls were like, and he'd be like, watch this, stairway to heaven.
That was Beto O'Rourke.
And the media love it too, because the media are a bunch of emo tool bags.
The media look at Beto O'Rourke and they say, wow, he's just like me.
He's had struggles too.
Now his struggles generally consisted of growing up pretty powerful and wealthy, going to an Ivy League college, and then having to find himself, yeah.
But that's half the New York media.
So Matt Flegenheimer over at the New York Times describes it.
All at once, New York City seemed to be conspiring against Beto O'Rourke.
His girlfriend was moving to France.
His punk bandmates had scattered.
23 and searching, with an Ivy League degree that could not pay rent, Mr. O'Rourke subsisted as a live-in nanny on the Upper West Side, with a futon in the maid's quarters, watching over a wealthy family's two preschoolers.
Yes, clearly, this is a man who has suffered.
Clearly, this is a person who has overcome obstacles like his girlfriend leaving to go to France.
And also, His punk bandmates breaking up with him.
Just terrible.
Great things were not happening.
By late 1995, Mr. O'Rourke had fallen into the deepest depression he can remember.
He worked for an uncle's tech business because it was a job.
He spent nights alone, listening to his cassettes because it passed the time.
Little bit of a sad case, Mr. O'Rourke said.
More than two decades later, long after what his friends describe as a quarter-life crisis, Mr. O'Rourke has arrived at a midlife crossroads of enormous consequence, with revealing parallels to his time in New York.
Forty-six and searching, after a narrow Senate loss in Texas last year that propelled the former El Paso congressman to Democratic stardom, he has been driving around the country, alone, introducing himself to strangers, deciding if he wants to run for president.
So there's a long piece about how it parallels his time in New York.
When he'd like sit in his room and look at his posters on the wall of his favorite punk bands and then strum the bass line to Smells Like Teen Spirit and just sit there and sing to himself and think about life and the existential possibilities of death.
He has described himself as stuck in and out of a funk.
He has compared the present reckoning to moments of rootlessness in the city when he last found himself out of work.
I just didn't ever want to feel like that or be in that place or that position again.
So that lately has felt kind of strange.
Maybe with some echoes.
And that's when he started, that's when he started singing.
Smells like teen spirit.
That's what he's been doing around Texas.
He actually, it's real weird.
He's just going up to individuals on the street, and he just pulls a guitar.
He doesn't even carry a case.
He just pulls it right out of his pocket, like Mary Poppins.
And there's the bass.
And you're like, dude, I just need, I just asked you if you could help me change this tire.
He's like, no.
Let's talk about life and whether I should run for president.
That's what I want to talk about, man.
This guy, one of the frontrunners, I love it.
He says, I'm not great solo.
I need people.
He's great.
He seemed like any other punk-minded student.
Jawbox t-shirt, hair past his shoulders, and a grim insistence that the Smashing Pumpkins had grown pretentious.
I told you he was a douchebag, man.
By college, friends say, Mr. O'Rourke had settled on the outlines of an identity that would last, a rebel in moderation, more puckish than unruly.
He said he chose Columbia in part because of the financial aid package, and in part because he looked up to his bohemian uncle, Mr. Williams, who had tapped into New York's music scene.
Before that, Mr. O'Rourke had attended boarding school in Virginia, largely to create some distance from his father, a political obsessive who did not understand his son's musical leanings.
Now Mr. O'Rourke had run of the city.
He went by Robert.
Beto was a nickname from El Paso, owing to its border town bilingualism, and he played the guitar, establishing himself as the school's gentle punk rocker.
When a bandmate in a group called Swype adopted a belligerent performance persona, telling crowds they were listening to angry Swype, Mr. O'Rourke protested from the stage.
He was like, we're no, we're not, we're not angry, the band member Alan Weider said.
It made him very uncomfortable, that I was mean.
Offstage, Mr. O'Rourke was a prolific dabbler, straddling disparate orbits.
He was socially conscious, but not especially political.
Other than whatever kind of politics were being talked about in Fugazi, a former roommate said.
He often kept to musicians' rollicking hour.
He liked to drink beer, but not in the Brett Kavanaugh sense.
Oh, you mean like the sense where you drink beer?
Pretty spectacular.
He sounds like a delight.
He says he was an English major skilled enough with computers to introduce roommates to the culture of early 1990s chat rooms, once pranking a girlfriend by posing as a romantically interested woman online.
I kind of had a boyfriend, the girlfriend Catherine Raymond recalled typing back to the person she didn't know was Mr. O'Rourke as he sat in an adjacent room.
Then she heard a shout through the wall.
What do you mean you kind of have a boyfriend?
Now, if a Republican did that, that would be called toxic masculinity.
Right?
Posing as a lesbian in order to try and seduce your girlfriend for your own turn-on pleasure.
But Mr. O'Rourke is cool.
And rad.
So that's amazing.
And now, he's suffering again.
Because, back in New York, that was a tough time, but now, he's thinking about, he's just thinking about driving down the road.
He says, I just had this vision of being in my truck with the windows down.
I remember calling my folks and I said, hey, I think I'm gonna come back to El Paso.
And now, Beta O'Rourke for president.
So, solid stuff.
Okay.
You know what?
We don't have time for any things I hate.
I've hated enough things today.
So, we're just gonna wait and save material for later in the day.
Got a couple of hours of show coming up later today.
That's why you should subscribe.
Go check it out or we'll see you here tomorrow.
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 Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera, production assistant Nick Sheehan.
Export Selection