Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:11:24

The Hard Stuff | Ep. 823

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump signs off on a massive budget deal, Democrats make grand promises, and Robert Mueller prepares to testify.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Yes, this is the West.
	The civilization that built human rights, that built the idea of natural rights, that built You know, the Notre Dame Cathedral that built the great libraries and universities of the West.
	Now we have been relegated to deciding whether to use he or she for a biological male or female, and also whether people should be forced to wax one another's balls.
	So I am very glad that this is how far we have come.
	Great job, everyone.
	The founders would be proud.
	We'll get to more of that.
	In a second, unfortunately.
	But first, good blinds are to a home what a good tie is to a suit.
	It brings it all together.
	But shopping for blinds is not one of the things I'm good at.
	I'm good at many, many, many things.
	Shopping for blinds, not on my skill set.
	Blinds.com, though, makes it really fast and really easy.
	That's why I like them, and that is why we at my home have used them.
	With 15 million windows covered, over 30,000 five-star customer reviews, Blinds.com is America's number one online retailer for affordable, quality, custom window coverings.
	Every order gets free samples, free shipping, a free online design consultation.
	Just send them pictures of your home.
	They'll send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, even the specific rooms.
	They'll even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as great in person as it does online.
	And it will, by the way.
	All their stuff is fantastic.
	They've really made it easy for you.
	There's no excuse to leave up.
	The Mangle Blinds, or worse, have no blinds at all because, well, that would be horrifying.
	So for a limited time, my listeners get $20 off at blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
	That is blinds.com.
	Promo code Ben for $20 off faux wood blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more.
	Blinds.com.
	Promo code Ben.
	Rules and restrictions apply.
	I'm just telling you, blinds.com is the best way to get window coverings.
	There are no competitors who are similarly good.
	Blinds.com, promo code Ben.
	Check them out right now.
	Rules and restrictions do apply.
	The reason that I was laughing a little bit during that ad is because, listen, I'm a professional, but even I have trouble transitioning between the waxing of genitalia and our advertisers.
	In any case.
	We begin today not with Canada deciding whether or not women must be forced to wax the balls of men who claim they are women.
	We'll get to that a little bit later on in the show because everyone's crazy and everything's crazy.
	Instead, we begin with a little bit more of a serious topic.
	And that is the inability to come up with solutions.
	So I'll begin with a quote tweeted from my friend Adam Grant.
	So Adam is an organizational psychologist.
	He teaches over at Wharton.
	And yesterday he tweeted out, agendas aren't driven by problems.
	They're driven by solutions.
	Calling out what's wrong without proposing ways to make it right is complaining.
	Suggesting potential fixes is constructive.
	Testing them is proactive.
	Now, I know all that sounds tautological, but unfortunately we live in a world where this is not true.
	We live in a world where our politicians are constantly lecturing us on the problems.
	And they're like, yeah, that guy, he at least knows the problem.
	He knows the problem.
	And then when it comes time to implement solutions, then everybody scatters for the hills.
	Then everybody runs away.
	So, we'll take a couple of examples today.
	So, let's begin With the example of global warming.
	So, global warming.
	A fellow named Steve Silberman tweeted out, who is a... I'm trying to remember what exactly he does.
	He's the author of Neurotribes, and he has written a bunch of books that have been on the bestseller list over at the New York Times.
	He tweeted out a picture of a plaque from Iceland, from the Icelandic Hiking Society.
	And it's called a letter to the future and it says, Okay is the first Icelandic glacier to lose its status as a glacier.
	In the next 200 years, all our glaciers are expected to follow the same path.
	This monument is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and what needs to be done.
	Only you know if we did it.
	So it's a letter from the future.
	Only you know if we actually stopped.
	The global warming that is threatening the planet if we did what needs to be done.
	This is virtue signaling of the highest order because, of course, the entire question when it comes to climate change is what do you do about it?
	Even accepting the IPCC report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if you accept those statistics, which, by the way, I do, even if you accept the risk modeling, much of which has been wrong, but some of which has been wrong in the milder direction.
	Some people say climate change has been more extreme than that.
	Even if you accept all that, there are no good solutions on the table.
	There just aren't.
	People who talk about alternative energy solutions that are ready to go are lying to you.
	The only alternative energy solution that actually would lower carbon emissions is nuclear power, which the left opposes.
	And when people talk about a carbon cap and trade deal, that would not cure the problem.
	It would not take the carbon that's already up there down out of the air.
	It would not actually apply, presumably, in places like India and China.
	And it would damn a bunch of people living in the third world to live in absolute penury if they can't use carbon-based sources of fuel.
	So there are no good solutions.
	So when people talk about climate change, typically what you hear from them over and over and over again is, well, at least we agree on the problem.
	At least we know the problem.
	This is why folks on the left tend to spend an inordinate amount of time calling people on the right climate change deniers.
	Why?
	Because then they don't have to talk about solutions.
	Then it turns into a moral battle about, here are those people who won't even acknowledge the problem.
	They won't even accept that there's a problem.
	And then the folks who are promoting the problem don't actually have to offer a solution.
	This is what the left has done in the United States with the Green New Deal, for example.
	Democrats signing on to a resolution talking about the necessity for a Green New Deal that is non-binding, that has no practical means of execution, that is insane in its actual proposals, if you actually took it seriously, and that got zero votes in the Senate.
	So this has become a point where everybody sort of signs off on the problem, and then if you don't sign off on the problem, you're the bad guy.
	But there are no solutions.
	So nobody actually ends up coming to anything remotely approaching a practical solution.
	A politician who's a perfect example of somebody who does this all the time is Cory Booker.
	So Cory Booker, the former mayor of Newark, Mr. Potato Head, who always brings his angry eyes.
	Cory Booker tweeted out this morning, It's not enough to tell us what you're going to do for our communities.
	Show us what you've done for the last 40 years.
	You created this system.
	We'll dismantle it.
	Ah, sufficiently vague.
	Noting that there are problems in the United States and he did not create the problems, you created the problems.
	Now, who is this you?
	Corey, you are the mayor of Newark, which still has a murder rate in the top 30 in the United States, so far as I'm aware.
	You're the mayor of Newark, which still has an unemployment rate a solid 1.5% higher than the average unemployment rate across the United States.
	And if we're talking About the problems created over the last 40 years.
	And Cory Booker says that he wants to dismantle the system.
	I'm glad to hear that he wants to dismantle welfare, the federally controlled public education system, Medicare, Medicaid, and broadly applied social security, all of which have arisen in the last 50 years in the United States.
	In other words, Cory Booker is doing what politicians very often do.
	He's pointing at a problem, and then he refuses to solve the problem.
	Instead, the virtue is in simply noting the problem.
	This does not move the ball at all.
	Because we can all talk about problems all day long.
	We all have problems in our life.
	But unless you have a solution, it's not helpful.
	And politics is not the place for sympathy.
	It really isn't.
	Politics is not a place you go where people just grant you sympathy.
	Politics is supposed to be for problem solving.
	So my wife and I, I've talked about this on the show before, My wife and I have a rule.
	It was developed very early on in our marriage when I discovered one of the major differences between men and women is sometimes what women would like from a conversation.
	So my wife would come home and she'd be complaining about work.
	And my first instinct, being a man, because this is a very male approach to issues, was not to offer a sympathetic ear, but to immediately jump to, okay, how do we solve that problem?
	So she would say, I'm having a problem at work.
	And I'd say, well, you should do X, Y, and Z. And she'd be like, well, I don't want to talk about what I should do.
	All I want you to do is know that I have a problem.
	I want you to hear me.
	I want you to sympathize.
	And this happened so often and became such a contentious point that we instituted a rule.
	The rule was I was allowed to ask at the beginning of a conversation whether this was a sympathy conversation or a solutions conversation.
	Was this conversation oriented toward finding an answer?
	Or was this a conversation oriented toward me demonstrating that I love my wife by offering sympathy?
	Well, politics should be about finding solutions.
	It should not be about offering sympathy.
	But politics has become nearly entirely about offering sympathy.
	And so, whichever candidate is most likely to offer you and people like you sympathy is the candidate that you like the most, even if they offer no solutions, even if they leave you bereft of solutions, even if the solutions they implement suck.
	Okay, this is all backdrop to our politics left and right.
	So let's take an example from the right.
	President Trump is prepared to back a budget deal that is garbage.
	Okay, he's about to announce support for a two-year bipartisan budget deal that boosts spending and suspends the debt limit for a full two years.
	Now, I'm old enough to remember when President Trump railed against debt spending.
	He talked about how debt spending was a really bad thing.
	He talked about how deficits were a really bad thing.
	This is before he became president.
	And he talked about correctly the fact that this is intergenerational stealing.
	If you don't like tax increases on you today, why would you assume that your children will love tax increases on them when the bills come due?
	You are doing something that is actually illegal in the United States if a credit card company did it.
	You are doing this when you sign off on these budget deals.
	If you took out a credit card and the credit card had a provision that your children have to pay off the credit card, if you do not pay off the credit card, that would be illegal.
	It would be illegal.
	You're the one who took out the debt.
	You're the one who has to pay the debt.
	If you have to declare bankruptcy, you declare bankruptcy, but it's on you.
	When it comes to the national debt, you are actually allowed to foist off, you're allowed to pass off the debt onto your children.
	So if you raise the debt, if you spend in huge deficit numbers and never pay for it, you're not the one who pays for it.
	Your kids and your grandkids pay for it.
	It is intergenerational stealing.
	My generation, I'm a millennial, we have been the victim of baby boomer intergenerational stealing.
	If you look at how social security operates, it used to be that every person on social security was supported by 14 or 15 American taxpayers.
	We are now down to the point where every person on social security is supported by between two and three taxpayers.
	So I basically have an additional member of my family I don't even know and who I get to pay every month.
	It's very exciting.
	And that was because people decided to put money in their own pocket at the expense of future generations.
	Which is a problem.
	And President Trump even acknowledged this problem last year.
	He signed a bad budget deal last year.
	And he said at the time, I'm not going to do this again.
	Because I acknowledge the problem of the debt.
	Well, acknowledging the problem is not solving the problem, Mr. President.
	Here was the president last year.
	My highest duty is to keep America safe.
	Nothing more important.
	Therefore, as a matter of national security, I've signed this omnibus budget bill.
	There are a lot of things that we shouldn't have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced, if we want to build our military, we were forced to have.
	There are some things that we should have in the bill.
	But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again.
	I'm not going to do it again.
	Well, fast forward a year.
	Get in your time machine.
	The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reached a tentative two-year budget deal Monday.
	They would raise spending limits by $320 billion and suspend the federal debt ceiling until after the 2020 presidential election.
	The agreement, which still must be passed by Congress, probably would prevent a debt ceiling crisis later this year, but also would continue Washington's borrowing binge for at least two years.
	President Trump tweeted on Monday, I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on a two-year budget and debt ceiling with no poison pills.
	This was a real compromise to give another big victory to our great military and vets.
	Listen, I understand the problem of not funding our military, but we did have a unified Republican Congress until about seven months ago.
	Why didn't we lower spending then?
	The deal was met with fierce resistance from some prominent Republicans who said it would add too much to the debt, a backlash that will force congressional leaders to work hard this week to ensure they have enough votes for passage.
	By the way, they should not.
	They should not have enough votes for passage because, again, we are raising debt on future generations and Republicans are complicit in this as much as Democrats.
	Barack Obama blew out the national debt.
	Okay, George W. Bush contributed to the national debt.
	Barack Obama then proceeded to blow out the national debt, almost doubling it in his time in office.
	He's raking up a trillion dollar deficit pretty much every year.
	Four trillion dollar budgets.
	Donald Trump enters office, and now that's the new normal, and so he just keeps spending at that rate.
	The agreement could spark concerns from House liberals because of concessions made to the Trump administration.
	The agreement marks a significant retreat for the White House, which insisted just a few months ago it would force Congress to cut spending on a variety of programs to enact fiscal discipline.
	Instead, the White House agreed to raise spending for most agencies, particularly the Pentagon.
	So I say you're not allowed to propose problems without solutions.
	Here's the solution.
	Do not sign a budget that raises spending.
	At the very least.
	I'm not even saying you got to cut spending.
	Do not sign a budget that raises spending.
	Start from that premise.
	If you got a cut in particular areas, you cut in particular areas.
	And if that includes some defense cuts, then you cut there too.
	Because guess what?
	We're still spending an enormous, enormous amount of money on our military.
	Because here's the reality.
	We shouldn't have a deal like sequestration where 50% of the cuts came from the military.
	That was Barack Obama's deal.
	Donald Trump is the president now.
	He doesn't have to do that.
	But if we don't cut our spending, we are in a world of hurt.
	We are in serious, serious trouble if we refuse to acknowledge what exactly is going to happen here.
	And here's the reality, too.
	The discretionary spending, which rose about 4% this year, is not the real problem.
	It is the systemic spending that is the real problem.
	I'll explain in just a second.
	Everybody knows the solution for that.
	Nobody will take that solution.
	The letter from the future to the American people looks something like, we're now in a debt crisis because you selfish bastards wouldn't actually cut back your Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, or restructure them so they're workable.
	That's what the letter from the future looks like, and that's exactly what's going to happen.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	First, if you've ever gone shopping for shaving products, you know it's hard to tell which ones are actually worth the money.
	Some of them cost a fortune, some of them don't.
	There are just too many options, which is where Dollar Shave Club helps make your life easier.
	They take out the guesswork, and they guarantee quality shaving products.
	I love all of my Dollar Shave Club products.
	They've got the best shaving cream.
	They've got the best razors.
	They've got the best soap.
	They've got the best shampoo.
	It's all fantastic.
	I really like their amber lavender body cleanser.
	It smells delightful.
	Dollar Shave Club has you covered head to toe.
	They have everything you need to shower, shave, style your hair, brush your teeth, stay fully stocked, get what you want whenever you need it, whether that's once a month or a few times a year.
	As a Dollar Shave Club member, I know what I'm getting is the highest quality.
	No more walking through the aisle at the store wondering what the heck I want.
	Right now, you can put the quality of Dollar Shave Club's products to the test.
	Their ultimate starter sets I have basically everything you need for an amazing shower, close shave, or clean teeth.
	The best part is you can try each one for just five bucks.
	After that, the Groovy Stock Box ships regular sized products at regular prices.
	Get your ultimate starter set for just five bucks at dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
	That's dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
	Check them out now at dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
	So again, we have a bunch of politicians and they are all fibbing about what exactly things are going to cost.
	And this is a serious problem because we all know in reality what the solution is.
	66% of the federal budget every year is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
	These all need to be restructured, particularly Social Security, which is effectively bankrupt.
	We are now taking money directly out of not the funds for Social Security, but from other places.
	It's basically a giant pyramid scheme.
	And then we are passing those debts along to future generations or we are racking up debts by selling bonds.
	Whatever it is, the debt is going to come due.
	Noah Rothman has a piece over at Commentary Magazine dated in April talking about what an American debt crisis would look like.
	He says, in 2035, just 16 years from now, Social Security's funds will be insufficient to meet its obligations.
	Social Security trustees announced that the program's ballooning costs are expected to exceed the revenue it takes in by next year.
	Medicare is just as bad.
	That program's hospital insurance fund will run aground as early as 2026.
	And unlike the situation with Social Security, Medicare trustees found that increased tax revenue has not altered its doomed trajectory.
	According to last year's estimate from the CBO, the federal debt, which is currently equivalent to 78% of U.S.
	gross domestic product, will reach 100% of GDP in 2028.
	That means if you confiscated every dollar made in the United States by 2028, it still would not be sufficient to pay off the U.S.
	national debt.
	That projection rests on several assumptions, all of which are false.
	No new federal spending initiatives.
	Democrats are pledging many new federal spending initiatives.
	No new wars.
	No recessions.
	A projected decline in defense spending.
	And none of that is true, which means that we will be at a 100% debt-to-GDP ratio probably by 2024-2025 at the latest.
	Rothman says Americans know a debt crisis is coming and they don't care.
	In 2005, George W. Bush outlined a major initiative to reform Social Security that would introduce secured individual investments into the system, stabilizing the program, rendering it financially sustainable.
	The effort failed.
	In 2012, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan recommended gradually raising the retirement age for younger workers and slowing the growth in benefits for Americans with higher incomes.
	They were defeated.
	In 2016, Trump ran explicitly against conservative efforts to rein in entitlement spending, and he won.
	This is the new normal in America.
	Everybody bitches about the problem, and nobody has any solutions.
	And if you do provide a solution, then you're immediately ruled out of order.
	Because your solutions, as it turns out, very often stink, as we will see from the Democrats.
	So the national debt crisis is not going to stop.
	And it didn't stop just because the name on the Oval Office changed from Obama to Trump.
	I was carping about the national debt.
	I'm old enough to remember when there was a thing called the Tea Party.
	And the Tea Party complained that we were spending out of control, that we couldn't afford things like Obamacare, that we couldn't afford TARP, that we couldn't afford all of Obama's spending initiatives, cash for clunkers, and all the rest.
	Where'd everybody go?
	Where'd everybody go?
	I understand we're all intoxicated by the brew of having Donald Trump in the White House, but guess what?
	That didn't change the underlying fact.
	So if you were complaining about the problem then, but you're not now, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
	More importantly, check yourself before you wreck the American economy.
	And if you're President Trump, or Republican voting in Congress, get your head on straight.
	It's time for you to put your money where your mouth is.
	Or rather, stop taking money from the mouths of kids who have not yet been born.
	Because that's what's going on here.
	And again, here's one of the big problems.
	When you label problems incorrectly and then come up with solutions, here's the second problem.
	So we have a couple of problems.
	One is people who want to carp about the problem but not solve it.
	And then there are people who want to carp about the wrong problem and then solve it in the wrong fashion.
	So this would bring us to the problem that we have seen of criminal justice reform.
	Now, I'm very much in favor of some of the provisions of criminal justice reform, the so-called First Step Act, the bipartisan bill passed by President Trump.
	Okay, the first step acted a couple of things that are good.
	It moved prisoners closer to their hometowns, so presumably family could visit them, made family reunification easier in the aftermath of prison.
	But it also did some stuff I don't like.
	It lowered sentencing capacity.
	It made it easier for people to let other people out of prison.
	Well, naturally, this means that some criminals are getting out of prison.
	We should note here that the recidivism rate for American prisoners is extraordinarily high, somewhere between 60 and 80%.
	Now Fox News is reporting that more than 100 violent criminals have been released under the First Step Act, and the data were first obtained exclusively by Tucker Carlson Tonight.
	They seemingly contradicted lawmakers' promises that legislation would affect only prisoners sentenced for minor drug-related offenses.
	Of the 2,243 inmates released under the First Step Act, only 960 were incarcerated for drug-related offenses.
	496 were imprisoned for weapons and explosives related crimes.
	So people who had guns when they weren't supposed to or explosives.
	239 for sex offenses.
	These people being released early.
	178 for fraud, bribery, and extortion.
	118 for burglary and larceny.
	And 106 for robbery.
	Another 59 were imprisoned over homicide or aggravated assault and now released onto the streets.
	46 for immigration related offenses.
	9 for counterfeiting embezzlement.
	And 2 for national security reasons.
	In all, 2,023 of the inmates were male, only 211 were female, and about half of the inmates were black, while about half were white.
	So about 1,000 of the inmates were black, about 1,100 were white, which reflects the general Sort of breakdown of America's federal prison population, which is heavily minority.
	And this, of course, was the driving force where people complaining that America's quote-unquote mass incarceration system was targeting blacks and Hispanics and that this is all about drug crime.
	But as it turns out, it wasn't all about drug crime.
	A lot of these people are being released from prison after committing non-drug related offenses.
	And we're starting to see the effect of liberal governance when it comes to crime.
	I would not be surprised over the past few years we've seen, in 2014, 2015 particularly, we saw the so-called Ferguson effect, rising murder rates in cities around the country.
	That seems to have leveled off in 2017, 2018.
	Would not be surprised to see crime rates start to go up again as America takes a more liberal position when it comes to fighting crime.
	An anecdotal example comes courtesy of Seattle.
	Jason Rantz, my friend over at MyNorthwest.com, and he's hosted for me before.
	He says a prolific Seattle offender with over 70 criminal convictions allegedly attacked another victim, this time a toddler in a stroller.
	It's the same offender Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes has fought to keep out of jail.
	The latest incident happened in downtown Seattle on July 20th.
	Francisco Calderon, a homeless man, entered multiple businesses along the 500 block of Pine Street, causing disturbances and trying to start fights.
	He's done this before.
	According to witness accounts outlined in a police report, Calderon grabbed a cup of coffee from a random passerby and threw it in the face of a random toddler.
	The child's father struck Khal Daron roughly six times, knocking him to the ground when police arrived.
	He was arrested for assault three of a child.
	The child was rushed inside the nearby gap by his mom, where he was cleaned and treated in the store's bathroom.
	The officer on scene said the temperature of the coffee was unclear.
	It was unknown if there was any biohazard component.
	The kid was not physically injured or appeared not to be, but was not communicative and appeared to be staring off into space, possibly in shock.
	When questioned by police, Calderon said he tripped, spilling the coffee, but apparently multiple witnesses say this was not true.
	This is close to Calderon's 100th run-in with law enforcement.
	As Rant says, he's a criminal who shouldn't be on our streets, but in Seattle, we don't punish criminals because social justice.
	The same thing, by the way, happens in Los Angeles, where crime rates are undoubtedly rising, despite the attempts of the mayor's office to try and hide all of that.
	When you mislabel the problem as a problem of discrimination rather than a problem of crime, you end up with bad policy.
	And some of that bad policy involves reversing good policy, namely punishment of criminals.
	In just a second, we're going to get to people making new promises.
	New promises that are completely unfulfillable.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, getting in shape.
	It's about more than just exercise.
	I know this because, listen, I've been working out pretty much every day for five years.
	I'm still waiting for the six pack to appear.
	It just has not happened.
	Despite all my talk about Having the body of a Greek god.
	I don't look like Michelangelo's David.
	I mean, I'm massive, like, admittedly.
	But let me just tell you, I still need to work on myself.
	And this is where Noom comes in.
	Noom is awesome.
	So Noom is this fantastic app that allows you to reach your personal goals.
	Some of the things that they work on are changing your habits.
	So instead of just kind of checking in every so often and telling you to exercise or something, instead, they help you count calories, for example.
	They have people who actually reach out to you and check in to see how you're doing so you can talk with kind of a partner.
	They give you examples of things that you should eat.
	They help you figure out what kind of exercise they should do.
	And mostly, it's about changing your habits.
	It's about you thinking about this more often so that it's forefront of mind as opposed to it receding to back of mind.
	Noom is a habit-changing solution that helps users learn to develop a new relationship with food through personalized courses.
	It's based in psychology, and Noom teaches you why you do the things you do and then arms you with the tools to break the bad habits and replace them with better ones.
	It's not a diet.
	It's a healthy, easy-to-stick-to way of life.
	I know because I'm using it every single day.
	We're all strapped for time.
	Noom asks you to commit about 10 minutes a day for yourself.
	You can chat with a goal specialist and Noom community specialist to get and give help to people going through the same thing.
	So they create partnerships.
	It becomes a social thing.
	It's really awesome.
	You don't have to change it all in one day.
	In fact, you won't be able to.
	Small steps make big progress.
	Sign up for your trial today at Noom.
	It's noom.com.
	I'm a member.
	You should be too.
	What do you have to lose?
	Visit Noom.com slash Shapiro to start your trial today.
	That's Noom.com slash Shapiro.
	It's the last weight loss program you will ever need, and it helps you reach your goals.
	That's really what it's for.
	Noom.com slash Shapiro.
	Check them out.
	Okay, so, meanwhile, while we are labeling problems and missolving them, or labeling problems and not solving them at all, Democrats are setting a new agenda, and the new agenda is making radical promises that no one is ever going to keep.
	And that agenda is being set by the most radical members of the Democratic Party, unfortunately.
	It's funny, when you talk to Democratic legislators, when they're off the record, they'll acknowledge that there is room for compromise.
	They'll acknowledge there are solutions that might be able to be reached.
	But when they go out in public, the first thing that they do, I mean, I know Democratic legislators who do this, I've talked with them, but unfortunately, and this happens on the right too, it's not unique to the left, Unfortunately, when you get out in public, then it becomes more about posturing than it is about anything else.
	And so you see Democrats throwing out radical agenda items that make no sense at all.
	Like really no sense at all.
	And starting civil wars inside the Democratic Party, it's bad for the Democratic Party for them to be impractical.
	New York Times' Thomas Friedman, who's wrong about pretty much everything, is right about this.
	He says, if the Democrats fight amongst themselves because the radicals are fighting the moderates, nothing gets done and you're not going to have a unified agenda if you're facing up against Trump.
	I think there's just a lot of people out there who really want someone to keep it, I think, basically simple.
	And to me, the simplest democratic message is, I think, national unity.
	I think there are a lot of people around the country, Anderson, yearning for someone who's going to pull the country together.
	I think there's a lot of people who feel like we're heading for civil war, a kind of political civil war.
	So I think there's a huge yearning for that.
	OK, so I think that he is actually right here, but the Democrats are not going to go for it, because for the Democrats, they don't actually have a unifying national agenda.
	So it becomes about what kind of promises you can make, what kind of problems you can identify.
	No solutions allowed.
	None.
	And the Democratic Party knows that if you're going to go to a place where the problems are misidentified and no solutions are available, you go to the squad.
	Those are the people you go to when it's time to come up with solutions that are completely unworkable and stupid, when it comes to labeling problems that don't exist, when it comes to exacerbating problems that do exist.
	Who are you going to go to?
	You're going to call female Ghostbusters.
	You're going to call the Squad.
	So here you have a Democratic Representative Underwood admitting that the Squad is now setting the agenda for the Democratic Party.
	It's been really disturbing to see the president escalate this exchange of words between sitting Democratic Congresswomen.
	And you know, Mr. President, like it or not, sir, we are here, we are serving in the United States Congress.
	There is a cohort of smart, prepared, dynamic young women serving in the Congress.
	And yes, they are bold and are setting the agenda.
	But quite frankly, Andrea, women are setting the agenda in this 116th Congress.
	And that's something that we haven't seen before.
	So it's all about identity politics and it's not at all about what are the actual ideas.
	You know why they're doing that?
	You know why they're focusing it on the faces rather than the ideas?
	Because the ideas absolutely blow.
	The ideas are terrible.
	The ideas are absolutely awful.
	So, let's take some examples of the supposed problems.
	And solutions being offered by the Democratic left.
	OK, so Ilhan Omar, the new insane thought leader of the Democratic Party.
	My goodness.
	I mean, last last week, she's such a thought leader that she proposed an openly anti-Semitic pro-BDS resolution labeled anti-Semitic by Nancy Pelosi a month earlier at AIPAC.
	Not a Democrat said a word because this is how things work now.
	So here is Ilhan Omar creating what can only be described as a mad lib of Democratic policies.
	So when I say a Mad Lib, I mean that you can, I'll read you the sentence that she writes and then I will put it in Mad Lib form and you'll realize that this is basically how Democrats are now doing policy.
	She says, no one should fear receiving medical care because they are undocumented.
	We must ensure that all people in our country have access to reproductive health care.
	She's putting a lot in there.
	What is she talking about there?
	She is saying that we should have taxpayer funded abortion for illegal immigrants.
	That is what she's saying right there.
	She is saying that if a legal immigrant comes across the border and wants you to pay for their abortion, we should pay for it.
	So, this is the new Democratic Mad Lib formulation.
	Taxpayer-funded noun for group.
	You just have to pick what fits into that noun and group.
	My favorite?
	Taxpayer-funded dolphins for lesbian single moms.
	You can just pick any noun and any group and it totally works.
	Taxpayer-funded avocado toast.
	For millennials, right?
	And this just becomes part of the democratic agenda.
	And this is their whole thing.
	Again, these are promises that will never come true.
	The American people are not up for spending taxpayer funded money on abortion, let alone abortions for illegal immigrants.
	Come here to have your baby killed.
	Welcome to America.
	No one's up for that.
	But this is what the Democrats are proposing because they don't have any solutions to actual problems.
	What are some of the other solutions?
	How about Rashida Tlaib?
	So Rashida Tlaib, another member of the squad presenting ideas for your consumption.
	Yesterday, she comes out and she's cheering the $15 minimum wage that Democrats just passed in the House.
	Minimum wage has always been bad economic policy.
	It creates, it kills jobs.
	Artificially boosting wages means that you're artificially boosting prices.
	It also means that you're artificially lowering the number of hours that people can work.
	Minimum wage is a bad idea, but it is a particularly bad idea when you randomly pick a number out of the air and then decide that this is what the minimum wage should be.
	So why $15?
	Why not $20?
	Rashida Tlaib says, good question!
	Let's make it $20!
	For no reason.
	Because she says so.
	We can't allow people to be living off of tipped, you know, relying on tipped wages.
	It's just not, or whatever they call it, it's just income.
	Because it's just not enough to support our families.
	Big fights like this one, $15.
	By the way, when we started it, it should have been $15.
	Now I think it should be $20.
	Make sure America arrives in here tonight.
	It should be $20.
	No, it should be $20 an hour.
	Like $18 to $20 an hour at this point.
	Everything, all the costs.
	And so when they say all this is going to raise the cost, It's a little bit hard to hear her.
	She's saying it should be $20 an hour.
	And then it basically turns into a bidding session for cattle.
	Why not $21?
	Do I hear $21?
	I got $22.
	Do I hear $22?
	Do I hear $50?
	Do I hear $1,000?
	If you really think that minimum wage is going to solve this problem, solve income inequality, I have a proposal.
	I proposed it long ago to Shama Sawant, who is a socialist city councilwoman in the city of Seattle.
	We had a long debate on this topic.
	You can find it on YouTube.
	It's pretty amusing.
	I asked her straight off, why not $1,000 an hour?
	We'll solve income inequality in one day.
	It'll be unbelievable.
	And she could not explain why not $1,000 an hour.
	People who are sitting next to her, they were like, well, that would just be unrealistic.
	Really?
	Now you explain to me what's unrealistic.
	Because apparently you know how to run businesses better than all the people who have built, run businesses, and hired everyone.
	You don't hire anyone.
	Rashida Tlaib is not hiring anyone.
	The folks in Congress who are calling for $15 minimum wage have no employees paid for by them.
	All of their employees are paid for by the American taxpayer, which means future taxpayers, really.
	And yet they're gonna stand on their high horse and tell people sit on their high horse and tell people what exactly minimum wage should be again.
	Identifying a problem that people aren't making enough money and providing no solution other than something that is completely unworkable and stupid.
	This is the new Democratic Party of your making.
	And this is why Donald Trump, despite all of his foibles, despite all the things that he tweets, despite the fact that he pursues policy sometimes that I don't like, is in a strong position going into 2020.
	It is because for whatever his problems, at least he's provided some solutions.
	The Democrats are out there providing pretty much no solutions at this point.
	Their agenda is supposedly to make the country better by just not being Trump.
	I'm not sure that that's enough.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, make sure you tune in this Thursday, July 25th at 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific, for our latest episode of The Conversation.
	Host Andrew Klavan will be answering your questions live on air, so make them good questions.
	The episode will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube.
	Only subscribers can ask the questions.
	Subscribe to Daily Wire to get your questions answered by Andrew Klavan this Thursday, 7 p.m.
	Eastern, 4 p.m.
	Pacific.
	Join the conversation.
	Also, A reminder, next month we are taking our backstage show on the road for a special one-night-only event August 21st at the beautiful Terrace Theatre in Long Beach, California.
	If you've been dying to meet me, I don't know why you would, but if you are, then you can meet me live.
	We'll be live at that Terrace Theatre in Long Beach, California.
	Me, Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring, Andrew Clavin, and the ex-Gribble Michael Knowles will be there live.
	We'll be talking politics, pop culture...
	Answering questions from the audience.
	We'll get to hear.
	I'm sure Michael moles give a disquisition on Catholic doctrine So make all of this good tickets are on sale right now at dailywire.com Backstage including our limited VIP packages that guarantee premium seating photos and meet-and-greets with each of us a gift from me I'm shopping for it right after the show.
	I'm gonna go out to the store.
	You never know what it's gonna be I mean, is it a breakup gift?
	Is it is it a meeting it?
	What is it?
	Who knows?
	Check it out right now.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash backstage and get your tickets today.
	It is going to be terrific.
	At least it will be for you.
	I'm not, I don't, I can't say I desperately want to be there, but I mean, I guess if we have to be there, let's at least hang out, guys.
	Also, gang, if you don't just want to like meet us, if you want to work here, And just fair warning, it's rough.
	But if you want to work here, our business is growing rapidly.
	And that means that we are excited to be offering more opportunities to become part of our in-house team.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash careers.
	See if any of our job openings would be right for you or someone you know.
	Again, that is dailywire.com slash careers.
	Go check us out over there, dailywire.com slash careers.
	Also, as always, please subscribe.
	It helps protect us from the nastiness of the media matters left, which seeks to Go after our advertisers.
	Seeks to go after the platforms upon which we appear.
	They're really gross.
	And the way that you protect the content you love is by subscribing.
	So please join the team over at dailywire.com.
	$99 a year gets you everything that you want.
	All of this, including this, the greatest in all beverage vessels.
	The leftist here is hot or cold tumbler.
	Go check that out right now when you subscribe.
	By the way, I made a rare mistake.
	I can't say it was my mistake.
	It may have been a mistake by my producers, but our conversation is not happening on Thursday.
	It is actually happening on Wednesday.
	I have been informed in my ear.
	So go check out the conversation on Wednesday, not Thursday.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Okay, so the democratic solutions are apparently, according to the squad, who are now the ideological thought leaders, taxpayer funded abortion for illegal immigrants, $20 minimum wage.
	And according to Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, the illustrious, the brilliant, the thought leader, everyone here in the United States illegally should be allowed to stay.
	And everyone around the planet who wants to cross into our country should be allowed to come.
	So apparently the United States, first of all, I don't know why this isn't imperialist, Like really, she's worried about colonialism and imperialism?
	How about making everyone on earth an American citizen?
	Basically, this is what she suggests.
	Anyone who makes it into the United States should stay.
	So here's what we've got.
	Taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants who can stay no matter how they got here.
	So for billions of illegal immigrants who cross our borders.
	And also they get paid a $20 minimum wage.
	How could it ever go wrong?
	Here's AOC.
	I think migration to me is liberation.
	It's the ability to move and be.
	It's the freedom to be, really, is what we're talking about.
	And I think that all people should be free to be here and in our communities.
	Because I think that when you start viewing human beings as intrinsically valuable, Okay, then she should open her front door and feel increasingly blessed that random people walk in and eat her cookies.
	This is ridiculous.
	It's ridiculous.
	She's Marianne Williamson if Marianne Williamson were birthed by Karl Marx.
	It's insane.
	By the way, it's not just the AOC squad.
	It's also the Democratic leading lights.
	It's Elizabeth Warren, who, by the way, is beloved by all of the intelligentsia in the Democratic Party because, of course, she is a smart lady because she taught at Harvard Law.
	But that's not stopping her from proposing radical solutions that are not going to be implemented.
	She says, we're all going to transition to government-run health care, depriving 155 million Americans of their private health insurance.
	This is being openly proposed.
	She did this in an AARP presidential candidate forum.
	It is amazing, by the way, how left the AARP is.
	We have sponsors here on the program who provide an alternative to AARP.
	There is a reason.
	The fact that the AARP is doing a forum where everybody nods and laughs when she talks about government-run health care for everyone, you know who benefits a lot from private health insurance?
	Older folks who are buying supplemental insurance, even if they have Medicare, and older folks who have private insurance, who, by the way, represent an enormous health care burden on the United States Medicare system.
	Here she is saying, well, put everybody on Medicare, but don't worry, it won't hurt the old people somehow.
	Here is here is Elizabeth Warren saying nonsense.
	Your Medicare for all proposal would eliminate private insurance, correct?
	Is that right?
	What it does is it transitions people to more complete insurance coverage, more complete healthcare coverage at a lower cost, which I think is what we all want.
	Everyone gets covered, but we do it at the lowest possible cost.
	It's about healthcare from our babies to our seniors so that no one has to go bankrupt over a medical problem.
	Okay, so this is...
	The Democrats have nothing, and their radical agenda is alienating Americans.
	And here is how you know that this is going to be a very competitive election in 2020.
	Because the Democrats, by ignoring all the issues, by bringing up problems that don't exist in order to address, in order to avoid problems that do exist, By providing no solutions?
	If Donald Trump could just control himself, he would win this thing in a walk.
	There's a new Gallup poll out just now, and it is a question as to what is the most important problem facing the country today?
	What's the most important question facing the country today?
	Number one, immigration.
	27% say immigration.
	Number one, the vast majority of those people, I would assume, are people who are not in favor of open borders.
	And the Democrats preaching open borders and taxpayer-funded abortions for illegal immigrants, that is not going to help them.
	Number two is the government and poor leadership.
	And this is where if President Trump would shut his pie hole, he would be in pretty good position come 2020, because that's a lot of Democrats who, again, don't have real policy solutions, but are angry at President Trump.
	Only 7% say race relations and racism.
	So the media's key focus, race relations and racism.
	Only 7% of Americans say that is their top problem in the United States, which, by the way, is a lot less than minority population of the United States, right?
	I mean, 10% of the American population Only 7% of Americans saying that race relations are the number one problem in America, which is correct.
	They are not the number one problem in America.
	Only 7% name healthcare.
	Only 4% say climate change.
	The media's top priorities, which are racism, healthcare, and climate change.
	Those represent a collective 18% of people who say it's their top priority as opposed to immigration, which is 27%.
	And then you get to unifying the country at 4%, the economy in general at 3%, poverty, hunger, and homelessness at 3%.
	The Democrats are blowing this thing.
	Because innately, I think most people understand what I've been talking about this entire hour.
	I think most people innately understand that if you're not providing solutions, then you're part of the problem.
	And right now, Democrats are part of the problem.
	And that's why President Trump, there are polls that show that more than half of Americans approve of President Trump on the economy.
	And more than half also say that they will not vote for him.
	I really wonder whether the latter number is true.
	Because in the end, people feel the impact of politics on their lives.
	That's what Trump has to hope for.
	And again, it's why the best thing Trump could do is make his personality secondary to the actual policy he is pursuing.
	Even if I don't like some of the policy that he is pursuing.
	Okay, meanwhile, across the pond in Britain, the big story is that Boris Johnson has become the next Prime Minister of Britain.
	According to the Washington Post, Boris Johnson handily won the race to lead the Conservative Party on Tuesday and will be Britain's next Prime Minister within a day.
	Now, Johnson has been perceived as sort of the Trump of Britain.
	This is not the case.
	He has pretty sterling intellectual credentials, says Boris Johnson.
	He tends to act like a buffoon for fun because it's good for his image and he understands that being straight-laced and uptight, like Theresa May, that that is not actually going to help you when it comes to British politics.
	So he's this sort of cartoonish character who happens to be a pretty solid knife fighter when it comes to British politics.
	I spoke with Daniel Hanan, who is the UK representative to the European Parliament.
	We did a Sunday special a couple of weeks ago.
	We talked about Boris Johnson.
	He said that Boris is one of the smartest people he knows.
	According to the Washington Post, Johnson, a bombastic Latin-quoting Oxford classicist, not quite Trumpy, with a mop of intentionally must yellow hair, made his name as an over-the-top journalist in Brussels, and then as London mayor, and galvanized the successful Brexit campaign in 2016.
	He'll walk through the black enameled doors of 10 Downing Street on Wednesday, fulfilling what his biographers describe as his relentless, blonde ambition, To follow his hero, Winston Churchill, into the top spot.
	Johnson captured about 92,000 votes inside the Conservative Party to Jeremy Hunt, the current Foreign Secretary, who's at 47,000.
	A dominant victory, showing Tories want a leader who promises above all else to deliver Brexit.
	President Trump, of course, is rooting for Johnson.
	He tweeted, congratulations to Boris Johnson on becoming the new Prime Minister of the UK.
	He will be great.
	Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also congratulated Johnson.
	He tweeted, Iran's Nazi confrontation.
	We have 1500 miles of Persian Gulf coastline.
	These are our waters and we will protect them.
	So there's an ongoing standoff right now between the Iranian government and the government in London.
	The handoff will be very quick, and then the question will be exactly how Johnson gets Brexit done, because Brexit was voted for two years ago.
	The clock is ticking.
	Basically, according to current law, by October 31st, if there is no deal on Brexit, then no-deal Brexit happens, which means that Britain just leaves the EU without any negotiated deal with the EU.
	The problem for Theresa May is she didn't want any of that to happen.
	She wanted a deal with the EU.
	The EU holds a lot of leverage over Britain in terms of trade.
	They've been threatening Britain not to leave the EU.
	They've been trying to overrule the will of the people.
	Which, of course, explains exactly why Brits voted for Brexit in the first place.
	They voted for Brexit because they said the EU is trying to control our lives with their onerous regulations.
	And we don't trust the EU to handle things like immigration.
	We don't trust the EU to handle things like trade agreements as a bloc with other countries.
	We've created internal freedom to trade, but then you've got the EU that is actually setting barriers to our trade with, for example, the United States.
	And we shouldn't have that.
	And so we're voting to leave.
	And the EU says, you say that we're too controlling?
	Well, if you leave, we're going to hurt you.
	The EU is pretty abusive, obviously, toward member states that do not wish to accede to all of their demands.
	So Boris Johnson has on the table no-deal Brexit, which would go forward October 31st.
	He has vowed if there is no deal by October 31st, that is exactly what will happen.
	The market's dropped slightly on this news, but basically this is already all priced in.
	Would it be the end of the world, a no-deal Brexit?
	No, it wouldn't, because the fact is that the UK is still an economic powerhouse with regard to the EU, and people inside the EU are still going to want British products, and vice versa.
	So there will be agreements between the UK and the EU.
	The UK is not going to be frozen out by the EU.
	One of the lies that has been told by the media is that the folks who are in favor of Brexit are in favor of high tariffs against the EU.
	Of course, that is untrue.
	They're seeking lower tariffs with the rest of the world.
	And Trump has already vowed that he will negotiate quickly an agreement with the UK separate from the EU.
	So how does this move forward?
	We'll find out.
	Writing in Monday's Telegraph, Johnson said it's time the country recovered some of its Kansu spirit.
	He said that if the Americans could land men on the moon 50 years ago using hand-knit bits of computer code, then 21st century Britain could imagine a way to provide for frictionless trade.
	Across the Northern Irish border, which has been one of the stumbling blocks of the Brexit deal.
	The reason that's part of the stumbling block is because the nation of Ireland is divided, the island of Ireland is divided, and part of the country It's actually two separate countries, technically speaking, thanks to the Irish peace deal.
	Part of the country is still part of the UK, part is independent.
	And there are no barriers in terms of crossing that border.
	That could change if Brexit goes forward, because then you would need barriers to monitor one country that is part of the EU and one that is part of the UK.
	Tony Blair is telling the BBC that these things are technically different when it comes to how to do all of this.
	The European's top Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, said that his side looked forward to working constructively with Johnson.
	Barnier said the EU was prepared for some compromise, ready to rework the Declaration on Future Relations.
	In all likelihood, whenever people kick a deal down the road, worse does usually come to worse.
	I'm predicting that there will be a no-deal Brexit.
	And if that happens, then that happens.
	And I don't think that the fallout is going to be nearly as bad as folks think that the fallout is going to be.
	The Washington Post, of course, predicting that Boris Johnson becoming prime minister is then going to fall apart on him as No Deal Brexit goes forward.
	Ishan Tharoor writing at the Washington Post, he says, After his widely anticipated confirmation in a leadership vote by members of the Conservative Party on Tuesday, Johnson is expected to carry out the ritual visiting of Buckingham Palace on Wednesday before assuming his role as Britain's newest prime minister.
	Johnson's rise to power has long been telegraphed.
	A scion of wealth and privilege, Johnson went to Eton and Oxford before embarking on a controversial career in journalism that would catapult him into politics.
	Now Johnson gets the chance to prove that the manure in Britain smells different.
	He has vowed to push forward Brexit, break free of the tyranny of the EU, and lead a liberated Britain to its former global greatness.
	His supporters are willing to look beyond a cringeworthy record of gaffes, sordid peccadillos, and soft bigotry.
	So they're already trying to portray him as a bigot.
	That's always how this goes.
	Most analysts reckon he is in for a rude awakening.
	Because if he goes forward with Brexit, then that will be deeply unpopular.
	But again, I think that is unlikely and I think that the British public is willing to grant him at least a window of opportunity to do all the things that he says that he is going to do.
	So, Boris Johnson in the UK, congratulations on his accession to the prime ministership.
	And I think that a lot of folks across the pond are rooting for Boris Johnson to be successful in negotiating a Brexit deal and providing for more independence from Brussels.
	Alrighty, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So, I stumbled on this singer named Yola.
	And she is just first rate.
	She really is terrific.
	So as you know, when I recommend music, typically it is classical music or old school jazz.
	It's very rare that I recommend a modern artist.
	There's an artist, her name is Yola.
	She is from Britain and she does this sort of country rhythm and blues deal that is really unique.
	Her name is Yola.
	Her voice is just terrific.
	And her personal story, she was a victim of an abusive home.
	Her newest album is something called Walk Through Fire, and it's literally based on her house catching on fire, and her catching on fire.
	And she says that she was laughing while her house was on fire.
	Why?
	Because when she was on fire, she thought to herself, okay, to distract from the pain, I need to think of the worst thing that's happened to me.
	And she thought of her abusive childhood, and she started to laugh because she realized that literally being on fire was not as bad That's her abusive childhood.
	In any case, she is immensely talented.
	Here is a little bit of one of her songs.
	I take a ride out in the country It's all I can do When the Whippoorwill sings A song so blue
	Falling out of love with you Is not an easy thing to do But you don't care about me Baby Running
	here is all I know The country satisfies my soul When I think I'm going Hey I take a ride out in the country She's terrific.
	I mean, she really is talented.
	She has been on CBS this morning, I guess back in March.
	She was, before this, I mean, it was really only this year that she started to break out.
	Before this, she was a backup singer for Massive Attack, the Chemical Brothers, and Iggy Azalea.
	So that is going wildly unappreciated because she is just tremendous.
	So check out her album.
	She's really good.
	Okay, time for some things I hate.
	Now we reach the other side of the ledger.
	So when we talk about artistic failings, I don't know if you have been... I don't know if you have been... What's the opposite of privileged?
	Damned to see the trailer for Cats.
	So Cats is one of the worst musicals of all time.
	I'm a musical theater aficionado.
	I grew up with the musical theater.
	My father wrote musicals.
	In fact, my father and I are writing a musical together right now.
	Cats is an abomination.
	It's awful.
	It is just a pastiche of cats singing to you.
	It's by Andrew Lloyd Webber, who is a talented guy, right?
	Phantom of the Opera is a well-crafted piece of musical theater.
	This, Cats, is just, it was always garbage, and the only people who were in the audience for a very long time were blue-haired old ladies who like cats.
	Now they've decided that they're going to make a movie of Cats, and this is some of the creepiest bleep you will ever see in your entire life.
	I mean, this is creepy.
	I couldn't even make it all the way through the trailer because I was afraid that I would have nightmares the rest of my natural life.
	It is so frightening.
	It is a bunch of people who are dressed up as cats, but they're not dressed up kind of as cats in the kind of furry way that Beto O'Rourke would dress up as a cat.
	No, they're dressed up as cats that are sort of CGI'd a little bit, as though humans were merged with cats.
	It falls directly into the uncanny valley, right?
	The Uncanny Valley is something they say in animation, where the closer you get to portraying a human on screen, the worse it is, because human beings are programmed to be able to see what looks human and what doesn't, and so it just kind of creeps you out.
	Well, this is like that, because they're not cats and they're not human.
	It looks as though Dr. Moreau's lab were real.
	And it is creepy as all hell.
	Here's a little bit of the trailer.
	If you subscribe, then you too can share my nightmares.
	Here's a little bit of one of the worst trailers in the history of humanity.
	I'm your face too.
	Oh no.
	Let your mother leave me.
	I haven't seen you before, have I?
	Open up and tell me.
	For me.
	If you find me.
	The meaning of what happiness is.
	So could I, wait, could I interest you in a movie about humanoid cats singing to you, directed by the guy who did the Danish girl?
	Could I interest you in a movie by the director of Les Mis?
	About a movie where Idris Elba, one of the most awesome actors on planet Earth right now, plays a cat?
	Where Jason Derulo shows up playing a cat?
	Could I interest you in something like this?
	Now, I don't know how they got a cast this large, except that I hope this thing bombs.
	I hope it bombs terrifically.
	Let me read you the cast of this movie, because people are insane!
	Are you crazy?
	Hey, you've got Idris Elba playing Macavity, cat.
	You got Taylor Swift as Bombalurina.
	Rebel Wilson shows up.
	Judi Dench shows up.
	Ian McKellen shows up.
	Jennifer Hudson shows up.
	James Corden shows up.
	Jason Derulo shows up.
	Ray Winstone shows up.
	So, like, half of Hollywood shows up for this thing.
	And all I can think of is burn it with fire.
	Burn it with fire.
	The best tweet on this, I was informed by one of my producers, Mike, is that this trailer makes you want to kick an actual cat.
	Which, don't abuse animals, folks.
	Enough animal abuse took place in the making of this film.
	It was human abuse, it wasn't even cat abuse.
	What a horror show.
	Okay, speaking of horror shows, over in Canada, things have gotten wild.
	There is a case that has made a lot of headlines at the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
	According to the National Post, a B.C.
	Human Rights Tribunal hearing devolved into repeated outbursts and name-calling this week as it considered a transgender woman's complaint that a home-based salon discriminated against her by denying her a Brazilian wax.
	Now, so far, you might think, well, this is bad.
	I mean, here's a transgender woman who presumably has had all the surgeries and doesn't have the male genitalia and wants just her surgically altered female parts to be waxed.
	Wrong you are!
	This is a case about a person named Jessica Yaniv, a man who believes he is a woman, but still has very, very female penis and testicles.
	Jessica Yaniv, the complainant, told the hearing she was entitled to receive the advertised wax service, and that if the tribunal ruled against her, it could lead to a dangerous precedent.
	You cannot choose who your clientele is going to be, she said.
	The she is coming courtesy of the National Post.
	This would be a he.
	How do I know it's a he?
	Because genetically, it's a he.
	Physically, it's a he.
	Even non-surgically, it's a he.
	Because buried in paragraph six of this article is the actual news.
	Business owner Marcia da Silva said she was not comfortable carrying out a Brazilian wax on a person with male genitalia, nor did she have the training for it.
	So we went real quick from bake the cake, bigot, to wax my balls, bigot.
	J. Cameron... I'm sorry, no other way to put this, guys.
	J. Cameron, De Silva's lawyer and litigation manager with the Alberta-based Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, told the hearing that a ruling against his client would be tantamount to ordering intimate services against someone's will.
	Of course this is true.
	Of course this is true.
	So, we live in a world where we are willing to acknowledge that women are very often threatened by males.
	That women, for too long, their experiences have been overlooked at the hands of quote-unquote toxic masculinity.
	And some of that is true.
	For too long, women have been mistreated by males.
	And there is a reason why women might be afraid of a random male coming to their house where they perform a service on their intimate areas.
	There might be a reason for that, but I guess the B.C.
	court now has to rule on whether a woman does not have a right to be nervous about any of this.
	She has to serve this person because this person says they are a woman.
	So in other words, you should be more afraid of a man who says straight out, I want you to wax my testicles than a man who says he is a woman who says that he wants to have his testicles waxed by you.
	So somehow it is more dangerous For a person who does not believe they are a member of the opposite sex and suffer from the mental disorder known as gender identity disorder, it is more dangerous to serve a male who does not suffer from that disorder than to serve a male who suffers from that disorder and still has all of his parts and is demanding that you service him in your home by waxing his genitals.
	That's what this case is all about.
	So, Jessica Yaniv was asked about all of this in an interview, and it didn't go all that great for Jessica Yaniv, but it doesn't have to because the social justice warriors will always come out in defense of the stupidest possible solution.
	No problem.
	You do what you want to do, Jessica, and you live your life whatever way you want to live your life.
	But the concern I have is that those women should also be allowed to live their lives the way they want to live their lives.
	But not when they discriminate against the rights of others.
	But they'll argue that they're not discriminating, that they're just saying, I'm sorry, we don't supply a service of a bikini wax or a Brazilian or whatever it happens to be, or the removal of hair from a genitalia, from a man, as far as they're concerned.
	Because it's male genitalia.
	And that's what they're saying.
	They're saying we shouldn't be forced to do that.
	Oh, have we lost his line there?
	Hello?
	You there?
	We'll try and get him back in a second.
	He seems to have lost the line.
	Have we lost our line, Scott?
	Okay.
	Okay, there are 10 seconds of silence because this person hung up.
	Because, of course, by any objective measure... I know, we have moved from the objective to the subjective.
	I know that we are now all supposed to... We are now all supposed to comply with the subjective demands of people.
	So, in the real world, when we interact with one another, we have to use objective measurements of what things are.
	So, to take an example, before me sits a computer.
	If I thought that this computer were an elephant, that would be because I'm wrong.
	And the way you can tell I'm wrong is because you can look at the computer yourself, and you can tell...
	That this right here would be a computer, right?
	Well, I'm fairly certain that if a woman looks at a set of twig and berries and says, you know what that is right there?
	That would be a penis and testicles.
	And the other person says, no, no, no, no, no.
	I say, I feel that these are female genitalia.
	These are a female penis and testicles.
	That would be just as wrong as me saying right here that this is an elephant.
	This is not an elephant.
	This is a computer.
	And a penis and testicles.
	That would be male appendages.
	And you are a male.
	Jessica Yaniv is a male.
	And if Jessica Yaniv went to the doctor for services, the doctor would treat them.
	They would do a prostate exam, for example.
	They would not do an exam for the uterus.
	And if they did, they would be a moron.
	They'd be wasting time and they'd be wasting money.
	But we now live in a world where doctors are expected to do a uterine exam on a biological male.
	I told you about a story in Nature where they suggested that there was a real problem with doctors classifying people by their biological sex.
	You know, doctors are taught biology.
	You know what we are all taught here in the real world?
	Objective reality.
	We are taught in the real world that there are objective indicators.
	You don't have to, you know, it's not a giant mystery.
	All of this isn't a giant mystery.
	You don't have to sit around wondering whether a person is a male or a female.
	Generally, you can look at them.
	There are a few outlying cases where people are so androgynous looking that you don't know.
	There are a few outlying cases where people have had surgeries to appear as a member of the opposite sex.
	And when it comes to some of those cases, when we talk about, for example, bathrooms, then it's less of a problem if a person who looks like a female goes into a female bathroom.
	It is a lot more of a problem because women in that bathroom will not think to be frightened or upset about all of that.
	If a male walks into a female bathroom and females get upset, I think they have every right to do so.
	Why?
	Because they're using their eyes and they're using their head.
	We are supposed to disable our prefrontal cortex in all of this.
	Well, one person who was unwilling to disable her prefrontal cortex was Lindsey Shepard.
	So Lindsey Shepard is an activist in Canada.
	She's a free speech activist, graduate of Wilfrid Laurier University.
	And she was permanently banned from Twitter earlier this week.
	Why?
	She, a woman, got into an exchange with a man, Jessica Yeny, in which the activist mocked Shepard from suffering from a uterine condition known as septate uterus.
	In a tweet, she replied to this person, at least I have a uterus, you ugly fat man.
	Harsh.
	Harsh.
	Fact check.
	Okay, but not something that is kind, but is that bannable?
	Because you called a man a man?
	The suspension came after a jousting match with a notorious trans woman named JY, who has been accused of predatory behavior toward children and making frivolous human rights complaints.
	The post-millennial reached out to Shepard, who said, I got suspended for two tweets, although they didn't tell me exactly which tweets were the problem, so I'm giving my best guess.
	She said she was concerned about her inability to respond to mistruths now that she is banned from the platform.
	Well, she deleted that tweet, right?
	So very often on Twitter, people are suspended.
	They delete the tweets and then they're allowed back in.
	Not Twitter.
	Not Shepard.
	They decided to ban her outright.
	Shepard first came to international prominence in late 2017 when she released a recording of being interrogated by staff at Wilfrid Laurier University following a class in which she presented a Jordan Peterson clip in contrast with a pro-transgender video as part of a class exercise.
	For this, she was threatened with having violated Canadian human rights law for having presented the video of Professor Peterson.
	Jordan, I'm friends with him.
	This is ridiculous.
	The staff compared Jordan Peterson to being as bad as Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos.
	So a couple of things there.
	On the gradation of Hitler to Jordan Peterson, it doesn't go like within this tiny circumscribed circle.
	Here it is.
	Hitler, Milo, Jordan Peterson.
	That's not how this works.
	I don't like Milo.
	I think Milo stinks.
	I think Milo's a bad person.
	But Milo is also not Hitler.
	It turns out Hitler is Hitler.
	And comparing people to Hitler, doesn't go all that well.
	But Lindsey Shepard ended up filing a $3.6 million defamation lawsuit or a lawsuit against Wilfred Laurier, and then Professor Peterson filed a subsequent defamation lawsuit.
	Shepard is not a controversial voice in a free speech debate.
	She's a left-leaning centrist who supports vegetarianism.
	But she's been banned from Twitter.
	Here's Lindsay Shepard talking about her ban from Twitter for the great crime of suggesting that a male is a male.
	I was banned from Twitter for responding to a couple of tweets that an individual that I will only refer to as JY made about me.
	on Twitter starts tweeting about how I'm dumb and how I have a loose vagina from pushing out a 10 pound baby.
	So I tweeted back and basically said, if you want to sound like a woman, this is not really the way to do it because this is more of a male way of speaking.
	Then J.Y.
	starts mocking how I have a reproductive abnormality called a septate uterus.
	And then I reply, and I say, at least I have a uterus, you ugly fat man.
	Okay, so, by the way, Jayway was not suspended for any of this.
	For any of this.
	So this is an exchange where people were being mean to each other.
	And Lindsey Shepard was responding to a person who was criticizing her uterus and her vagina.
	And she was suspended from Twitter, because this is the world we now occupy, in which, if you are a member of a protected class, you can be offensive and terrible as you want to be, and everyone is supposed to respect that.
	Whereas if you are not, then if you respond in kind in any way, then you will be thrown out of polite society or considered cruel and mean and terrible.
	Wax my balls, you bigot.
	This is where we are.
	And now this is being encoded in law in places like Berkeley.
	How stupid is Berkeley?
	So Berkeley has a few problems.
	One, a massive homeless problem.
	Poop on the streets, affecting Antifa, runs half the city.
	I mean, there's some serious problems in Berkeley, California.
	When I visited Berkeley a couple of years ago, it required 600 police officers and the state-ies in order so that I could give a speech there.
	I mean, they got some problems over in Berkeley.
	But Berkeley is taking on the issues that matter.
	According to the Associated Press, Berkeley, California has adopted an ordinance to replace some terms with gender-neutral words in the city codes.
	The San Francisco Chronicle reports that she and he will be replaced by they, which is going to make things very awkward when it comes to, for example, I don't know, separate funding of sports, for example.
	Title IX specifically says that you have to have female sports and male sports.
	I guess now you will just have they sports, which means no female will ever compete in a sport.
	Again, if you have government-sponsored sporting leagues, for example.
	The words manpower and manhole will become workforce and maintenance hole.
	Maintenance hole, by the way, sounds awful.
	Just got to tell you, you're not helping yourself.
	Maybe it should be PERSON-tence-hole.
	The City Council on- That's so- What in the- What in the world?
	The City Council on Tuesday unanimously passed the measures to replace more than two dozen commonly used terms.
	There will be no more craftsmen in city code, only craftspeople.
	Or artisans.
	Berkeley says the AP has a long history of leading on politically and socially liberal issues.
	You might say that they have a long history of being idiots.
	The sponsor of the ordinance is Councilman Rigel Robinson, a 23-year-old recent grad of Berkeley, of course.
	He says his time in college expanded his awareness of gender issues.
	Super duper important.
	Glad that you're cleaning up the trash and making sure crime doesn't take place, but everything is called now a maintenance hole.
	That is, that is entertaining stuff.
	Also!
	Also, it is important to note here that this whole routine where folks are being silenced in their views that men are men and women are women has carried over into the field of science.
	It is so wildly controversial to publish anything that talks about scientific rigor in examination of gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder that scientists are just not doing it anymore.
	We talked about the case last year.
	I mean, there is a danger to political correctness shutting down science.
	One danger is that it kills science.
	Another danger is we don't actually know the consequences of what in the world we are doing.
	The politically correct declare that something is healthy, thus it becomes healthy, and if you study it, then you're a bigot.
	We had this last year with Brown University, where a professor wrote a paper on what was called rapid-onset gender dysphoria, the fact that it was becoming trendy to become transgender in high school, and there was data to back it up, and Brown basically pulled back the paper temporarily and apologized for running an abstract.
	Now there's a report from BBC Newsnight called Transgender Treatment Puberty Blockers Study Under Investigation.
	England's only NHS, National Health Service, youth gender clinic, lowered the age at which it offered children puberty blockers, partly based on a study now being investigated.
	In other words, a study came out.
	It was a bad study.
	It suggested that puberty blockers didn't do anything bad to kids.
	It turns out it does do bad stuff to kids, but everyone went along with the myth because it was more important to go along with the myth than to tell the truth and protect children.
	Which would be evil, right?
	If you have a study that is flawed and you push it out there because you have an agenda that is broader than that.
	Then that would be, and it affects children?
	Pretty sure this is almost the essence of evil.
	The study's full findings have not been published.
	Early data showed some taking the drugs reported an increase in thoughts of suicide and self-harm.
	I can't imagine why that would be, that if you take a child who is not hormonally developed, and you start giving them puberty blockers to prevent them from growing in the way that they normally would grow naturally, that this might harm their mental awareness, their mental health.
	I can't imagine that's the case.
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	In the United States, you can't get an antibiotic prescription at school without parental permission, but you can get an abortion in many cases without parental permission.
	In Britain now, they're saying we should be able to shoot you up with hormones that prevent you from growing, and if you're a girl, will prevent your breasts from growing, and if you're a boy, will prevent you from maturing and body hair growing and your testicles dropping.
	We can give you all of that, and don't worry, it'll be fine.
	Don't worry, it'll be totally fine.
	Well, as it turns out, it's not totally fine.
	Children as young as 11 are now being offered these hormone-blocking drugs.
	The clinic said data was from a small sample, and so no meaningful conclusion could be drawn from it.
	Of course.
	Of course.
	Experts on clinical trials have criticized the design of the study, which they say makes it hard to tell if the reported effects were due to puberty blockers or something else.
	But experts said they warranted further investigation.
	Yes, I'm sure that additional depression has more to do with the all-purpose blame machine.
	It has to do with societal intolerance, I'm sure, more than it has to do with physically taking hormones and shooting them into children.
	I'm sure.
	The Health Research Authority, which ensures that medical studies are ethical and transparent, is now investigating claims brought to them by BBC's Newsnight program about the early findings from the study and the information that is understood to have been shared with patients and parents about the possible effects of puberty-blocking drugs.
	So in other words, the BBC is now trying to stop people from disseminating study information that might dissuade them from hormone-treating their kids.
	When a child in the UK is questioning their gender, they can be referred to the Gender Identity Development Service at Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in London and Leeds.
	One treatment on offer is puberty blockers.
	They work on the brain to stop the eventual release of estrogen or testosterone.
	I'm sure that's the only effect on the brain, guys.
	I'm sure it's fine.
	Before 2011, kids would give puberty blockers to children only once they had turned 16.
	But now, they are now doing this for kids who are 11.
	Acknowledging the weak evidence for the drugs, the research team made up of kids and University College Hospital staff set out to evaluate the psychological, social, and physical effects of the blockers on a carefully suggested group of young people.
	Details about the risks, such as potential adverse effects on bone strength, the development of sexual organs, body shape, or final adult height, were provided in a patient's information sheet, but Newsnight found certain information was not included.
	Previous research had suggested all young people who took the blockers went on to take cross-sex hormones, the next stage toward fully transitioning.
	But patients and parents were not told this in the information sheet.
	Michael Biggs, associate professor of sociology at Oxford, said, I don't see that the parents and their children could really have given informed consent given the lack of information that was provided.
	Professor Biggs, who's attracted criticism from some in the transgender community, said they were not given the information they needed in order to take this momentous, life-changing step.
	And this is the way this is going to work from here on out.
	Is that you're going to end up with science being silenced in the name of subjectivism.
	You're going to end up with people's rights being violated in the name of the supposed rights of people to have other services directed at them in the name of their subjective self-identification.
	If we don't even share language anymore, if we don't even share common definitions of male and female anymore, still, none of this makes any sense.
	I'm just going to point out that folks who are pushing the idea that a woman must be forced to wax the genitalia of a man, that these people still have not provided any definition by which Jessica Yaniv is an actual woman.
	Not one.
	Self-identification is not identification as a woman, because you still have not defined woman.
	My colleague Matt Walsh makes this point all the time.
	If you can't define woman, how do identify as one?
	Because a woman is not a biological woman, and a woman is not a set of stereotypes.
	So what exactly is woman?
	A woman isn't a social role fulfilled by a woman, because these same advocates will say that gender is a social construct.
	So how are you identifying as woman?
	You're identifying as what?
	A set of stereotypes or as a biological woman?
	If it's a set of stereotypes, why can't you be a male and fulfill those set of stereotypes?
	And if it's biological, you're not it.
	All of this suffers from lack of definitional awareness.
	But again, there's a problem that is being labeled, which is that anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
	There is no solutions being provided and the world gets worse.
	All right, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Adam Sievitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

▲