Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 6, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:27

The Second Cold War | Ep. 833

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The stock market plummets as President Trump's trade war with China bites, President Trump cracks down on Venezuela, and America continues to divide over mass shootings.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	All right, got a lot to get to today.
	A lot happening in the news.
	So we're just going to jump right in.
	The big controversy in the aftermath of the mass shootings that happened over the weekend, one of course happening in Dayton, Ohio, the other happening in El Paso, Texas.
	The big controversy has broken out over El Paso and Dayton and politics, obviously, because it would be too much to ask.
	That we all be on the same page.
	White supremacy, evil.
	White supremacist terrorism, evil and should be fought like terrorism.
	Mass shootings, horrific and we should discuss possible solutions.
	Like that would all be too reasonable and too rational.
	Instead, there's a narrative and the narrative that's being developed by the media and by a lot of folks on the left is that President Trump is solely responsible for what happened in El Paso and that the right is complicit in this and that all conservatives are secretly white supremacists.
	I think there are some folks on the left.
	I don't want to lump the entire left together here.
	I think there's some folks on the left who are being a little bit more careful about all this.
	I think there are certain folks on the left who are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that mainstream conservatives are extraordinarily upset about white supremacist terrorism, that some of us have spent our careers fighting white supremacism, that some of us have incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments that we have to make to security because of our fight against white supremacism.
	Some people are careful about this.
	Other people, however, and this includes many in the mainstream media,
	Are attempting to develop a narrative and when you're attempting to develop a narrative any fact that doesn't fit the narrative can be dealt with in one of two ways either you can incorporate it into a new narrative that is more nuanced and more interesting and more relevant and that follows the world of fact better or you can simply discard the fact and pretend that the fact doesn't exist and it's pretty obvious today that there are a lot of folks in the media who are more interested in the second path who are very upset in fact when the media accidentally stumble into doing journalism.
	When other members of the media stumble into doing journalism, they get very upset with them because those acts of journalism might undercut the narrative that so many members of the left are trying to build.
	So as we know, the members of the left are trying to build a narrative.
	That narrative is that President Trump is responsible for El Paso, that Trump is a white nationalist, that anyone who supports Trump is by default a white nationalist as well or a white nationalist sympathizer.
	That folks on the right are, broadly speaking, responsible for the evil of what just happened in El Paso, Texas.
	That is the narrative that folks on the left are attempting to push.
	And it's a really ugly narrative.
	It's an extraordinarily ugly narrative.
	It happens to be an extraordinarily false narrative.
	And yet, this is increasingly the narrative that is being pushed by the left.
	And so, what you see is folks like David Leonhardt writing over at the New York Times.
	Conservatism has a violence problem.
	The numbers don't lie.
	He says American conservatism has a violence problem.
	The current Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, once publicly suggested that the chairman of the Federal Reserve deserved to be beaten up because of his interest rate policy.
	Greg Gianforte, a member of Congress from Montana, physically assaulted a reporter who asked him a question he didn't like.
	President Trump has repeatedly alluded to extrajudicial physical force, including suggesting that his supporters might resort to violence if they didn't get their way.
	The most extreme version of conservatism violence problem is the most tragic.
	The pattern of mass shootings by people espousing right-wing views, sometimes encouraged in online forums.
	OK, that is not part of conservatism's violence problem, because there is not a single conservative living in the United States who believes that the shooting of innocents is a solution to the nation's problems.
	Nothing about conservatism, which is about government protection of life, liberty and property.
	Nothing in conservatism, which is about the belief that Western civilization has created a forum for democracy and liberalism and free markets.
	Nothing there espouses either a race-based view of the world or the idea that you should be able to go out and hurt people whom you dislike, particularly on the basis of race.
	And yet David Leonhardt is pushing the idea that this is a mere extension of the right-wing tendency toward violence.
	And this is nonsense, of course.
	And if we're going to talk about politicians who are espousing violence, all you have to do to find politicians who espouse violence is go on Twitter today where Barbara Boxer was joking about Mitch McConnell falling down and breaking his shoulder.
	All you have to do is take a look at Cory Booker suggesting a couple of weeks ago that he'd like to punch Donald Trump in the face.
	Joe Biden has said very similar things.
	Politicians on all sides of the aisle have been using this sort of language for decades.
	So the fact that there are certain Republicans who have done it does not mean this is an exclusively right-wing problem.
	Also, David Leonhardt then cites a study from the ADL.
	It's a very skewed study.
	It says 39 of the 50 killings committed by political extremists, according to the ADL, were carried out by white supremacists.
	Another eight were committed by killers with anti-government views.
	Okay, that ADL study does not actually look to the rationale behind the killings.
	It simply suggests that white supremacists have committed A certain number of killings, and that is true.
	But as we will see, that is not the standard to which the left holds itself.
	So here should be the standard for political killings.
	A political killing is when it is politically motivated, right?
	That I think is a reasonable standard for a political killing.
	A political killing is not when somebody commits a killing and then we go and we look into their politics in sort of a backfill fashion and then attribute to their politics what may not have been political.
	A lot of the killings by white supremacists or family members or other white supremacists, for example.
	And then to attribute that more broadly to conservatism is a second-order mistake that David Leonhardt makes over at the New York Times.
	Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the ADL, says, I may agree that it's our biggest threat, but to associate that with conservatism more generally is despicable.
	David Leonhardt says, yes, I understand.
	There are important caveats to add.
	Conservative America is mostly filled with honorable people who deplore violence and bear no responsibility for right-wing hate killings.
	Some mass shootings have no evident political motive, like the one in Dayton, Ohio, on Sunday.
	And liberal America also has violent and deranged people, like the man who shot at Republican members of Congress playing softball in 2017.
	Some Democratic politicians have also occasionally lapsed into ugly, violent rhetoric and suggested they want to punch their political opponents.
	But it's folly to pretend that the problem is symmetrical.
	Mainstream conservative politicians use the rhetoric of physical violence much more often, starting with the current president of the United States.
	Any stats to prove this, by the way?
	Can we have a comprehensive statistical analysis of this?
	I'd be curious to find out whether that is the case or not.
	In any case, this is the narrative that is being pushed, and that narrative is being tied specifically to President Trump, because Trump uses inflammatory language on a regular basis.
	He uses language that I think crosses a lot of lines of decency.
	On a regular basis since the idea is you pin white supremacist killings that Trump is not responsible for on Trump and then you pin Trump on the right and thus the generalized right conservatives across America are responsible for killings that they deplore, hate, have nothing to do with, condemn, believe that the person who did should get the death penalty for.
	It's a really easy trick, and despicable trick, that the left is playing.
	As we'll see, when that trick is challenged in any way, the folks on the left can't abide it.
	Like, in any way.
	And this is the trick.
	As I'll explain in just one second.
	First, let's talk about hiring at your business.
	So, you want to upgrade your business.
	You want to make sure that everybody at your business is top quality.
	Well, hiring used to be hard.
	Not anymore.
	When someone makes the slightest, most minor, insignificant mistake here, on the Ben Shapiro Show, they know how easily we can replace them.
	And they live in fear of that day.
	And that sort of fear makes them work harder.
	See, the beatings will continue until morale improves here at The Daily Wire.
	In reality, we're just hiring.
	We're not really firing anybody.
	We don't have a habit of firing people because we hire good people from the beginning because we use ZipRecruiter.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter will send your job posting to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
	But they don't stop there.
	As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one, spotlights the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that 4 out of 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
	Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free.
	At this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	That's ziprecruiter.com slash d-a-i-l-y-w-i-r-e, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Ziprecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Go check them out right now.
	That is ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	So as I say, it's not just David Leonhardt.
	It is also another New York Times columnist named Jamel Bouie.
	Jamel Bouie, writes about race all the time and believes that virtually everything he disagrees with is evidence of racism.
	So Jamel Bowie attacked me yesterday personally.
	I tweeted out that I thought it was despicable that so many folks in the press were trying to conflate conservatism more generally with white supremacism that we hate.
	Some of us, as I say, have had an enormous number of death threats.
	Some of us have been the victims of white supremacists who are currently going to prison because of those death threats.
	And so I wrote yesterday about some folks on the left.
	Your conflation of all conservatives with white supremacist monsters who despise actual conservative principles, you know, like the universal non-racially based applicability of principles of Western civilization is cynical, deliberate, and disgusting.
	So Jamal Bowie jumps right into that hole and immediately does exactly what I accused him of doing.
	He says the real point of this tantrum is to go after anyone who might make the connection between white nationalism and Ben's ideological project.
	You see, my ideological project is connected to white nationalism and forwarding the aspirations of white nationalism, according to Jamal Bowie, never mind the fact that I've been the loudest critic of white nationalism, probably in the United States, for the last four years, and was their number one target in 2016.
	That doesn't matter.
	I'm apparently one of them, or at least I'm lending them credibility, or I'm connected to their viewpoint.
	This is according to a columnist for the New York Times.
	And more broadly, the left is trying to do this with President Trump.
	And they're trying to suggest that Trump is the one who is lending credence to white nationalists.
	Now, I said at the time, in 2015 and 2016, that Trump winged and nodded at the alt-right.
	That was true.
	He did do that in 2015 and 2016.
	It was wrong.
	It was morally reprehensible.
	I said it at the time.
	But since 2017, he has not been doing that stuff.
	Now, maybe that's reason.
	But the fact is, so are these shootings.
	These shootings are recent, too.
	And to blame them on Trump, who has come out repeatedly and condemned white nationalism, wouldn't you be happy if he condemned white nationalism?
	Well, he did yesterday.
	And it turns out he's been doing it repeatedly.
	In fact, we have this mashup of President Trump over the last two years condemning white nationalism about a thousand times in a row.
	There must be no tolerance for anti-Semitism in America or for any form of religious or racial hatred.
	We are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.
	We want our country to be a place where every child from every background can grow up free from fear, innocent of hatred, and surrounded by love, opportunity, and hope.
	Racism is evil.
	And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
	Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
	We must never ignore the vile poison of anti-Semitism or those who spread its venomous creed.
	With one voice, we must confront this hatred anywhere and everywhere it occurs.
	Okay, Trump has said all this stuff.
	The left doesn't like that he said all this stuff because it fights against the narrative that they are trying to paint.
	The narrative being that Trump is the cause of white supremacism in the United States, even though it obviously precedes him.
	There have been white supremacist shootings in the United States going all the way back to my childhood and beyond.
	I remember there was a white supremacist shooting in my neighborhood back in 1999.
	There's a white supremacist who drove right past the place where I was about to go to high school and then proceeded to go to the West Valley JCC and shoot up the West Valley JCC.
	There were white supremacist shootings during Barack Obama's tenure.
	So this precedes Trump.
	Now, you may make the case that it is worse under President Trump.
	I think statistically, it's unclear whether that is the case, but In my opinion, it is.
	In my opinion, that is the case.
	But the attempt to paint Trump as a white nationalist or white supremacist is obviously the goal here.
	And it is politically motivated, because now Trump is speaking out on the same stuff you want him to speak out on, and you're angry about it.
	You're mad about it.
	Shouldn't you be happy that Trump is now swiveling around on this?
	Shouldn't you be encouraging him to do this?
	All of the editorials over the weekend where Trump needs to speak out about white nationalism, then he speaks out about white nationalism and white supremacy, and everybody on the left objects.
	Because it turns out the real agenda isn't to have Trump say the right thing, it's to have Trump say the wrong thing, so that you can then browbeat conservatives with the idea that they are supporters of white supremacy.
	Every Democratic presidential candidate has been pushing this particular narrative.
	Joe Biden, yesterday, compared Trump to the KKK.
	You can say a lot of things about Trump.
	Trump is not a member of the KKK.
	That's absurd.
	This is a president who has said things no other president has said since Andrew Jackson.
	We went through this before in the 20s with the Ku Klux Klan.
	50,000 people walking down Pennsylvania Avenue in pointed hats and their robes because they in fact decided they didn't want any Catholics coming into the country.
	We went through it after the Civil War in terms of the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacy.
	This is about separating people into good and bad in his mind.
	It's a trait used by charlatans all over the world.
	Divide people.
	Divide them.
	Pit them against one another.
	I'm sorry, it is unbelievable to hear this coming from Joe Biden, who suggested that Republicans like Mitt Romney, the most milquetoast human being who has ever walked the earth, wanted to put black people back in chains.
	And then we hear Joe Biden talking about folks who are dividing people along racial lines.
	And Beto O'Rourke then suggested that President Trump shouldn't come to El Paso, of course, because he is the great adjudicator of who should come to El Paso, including the elected president of the United States, who, by the way, won the state of Texas in 2016.
	I don't think the president should come here.
	Why?
	He described Mexican immigrants, this is a town of Mexican immigrants, as rapists and criminals.
	Repeatedly has warned of an invasion, trying to make us afraid of those who do not look like the majority of this country.
	He's described human beings as an infestation.
	You only have an attack like this when you have a president who gives people permission to act on this hatred and this racism.
	So that standard, if we're going to hold that standard, then Barack Obama, Dallas police officer shooting, Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots, Bernie Sanders shooting, AOC ice detainment facility attack.
	I mean, it's very easy to extend the standard that O'Rourke is talking about to encompass pretty much all political rhetoric in the United States.
	You can see that the media are very unhappy that Trump condemned white supremacy yesterday.
	They're interested in the division, not in unification.
	Don Lemon is a great example of this.
	Don Lemon on CNN.
	He suggested yesterday that Trump even condemning white supremacy rings hollow.
	So how would it not ring hollow exactly?
	I mean, really, you have to ask the counter question, which is, you have to give me, how would it not ring hollow?
	What would he say that wouldn't ring hollow to Don Lemon?
	The answer is nothing.
	And as we'll see, the left is very upset that anybody would point out that Trump actually condemned white supremacy yesterday.
	We have also called on this president to say the words that he finally said today, but they ring hollow when he coddles white supremacists, or domestic terrorism, or those who perform those acts.
	So listen, I hope that this makes a difference, but how many times have you and I been sitting here on television saying, well I hope this one changes things, I hope this one changes things, and then nothing happens.
	Okay, so again, that's not journalism, that is opinion.
	And Don Lemon is supposed to be journalism-ing.
	Well, the journalism got all over the place during that particular segment.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	We'll talk about the agenda.
	Again, the agenda is to say that Trump is in fact the cause of white supremacist terror attacks across the United States, and then to tie conservatives more generally to Trump, and by extension, to white supremacist terror attacks across the United States.
	Instead of us unifying, there's a deliberate attempt being made to divide Americans when we all agree on this stuff.
	That's the dirty secret.
	We all agree.
	White supremacism.
	Evil.
	Evil.
	Disgusting.
	Evil.
	A cancer.
	We're all on the same page.
	We should all be mourning together today.
	We should all be coming up with solutions together today.
	Instead, the left is insistent that the right swallow the white supremacist terror attack as a natural consequence of conservatism.
	Well, no.
	The answer is no.
	I'm not going to do that because it's bullcrap.
	That's not a thing that's going to happen.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, losing hair is no fun.
	Two out of three dudes are going to experience hair loss by the time they are 35.
	I know that hair loss runs in my family.
	I greatly fear it.
	Introducing Keeps, the easiest, most affordable way to keep the hair that you have.
	These FDA-approved products, they used to cost a lot of money, but now, thanks to Keeps, they are finally inexpensive.
	They are easy to obtain.
	For five minutes now, starting at just 10 bucks per month, you're not going to have to worry about hair loss again, which sounds Pretty fantastic.
	Getting started is really easy.
	Signing up takes less than five minutes.
	Just answer a few simple questions, snap some photos to complete your online doctor consultation.
	A licensed physician will review your information online, recommend the right treatment for you, and it's shipped directly to your door every three months.
	Keeps treatments are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.
	It's not like it's gonna regrow new hair.
	It's gonna stop the hair loss in place, which is big for me.
	It's the reason why I have used Keeps, because as I say, male pattern baldness, it runs in my family, not something I am interested in participating in.
	Only $10 to $35 a month plus.
	Now you can get your first month for free, which is a hell of a deal for getting to keep your hair.
	If you suffer from hair loss, or if it runs in your family, the last thing you need is to wait to see a doctor.
	You need to get this done now.
	Go to keeps.com slash ben and receive your first month of treatment for free.
	That's keeps.com slash ben.
	Again, if you suffer from hair loss, receive that first month of treatment for free.
	That's K-E-E-P-S dot com slash ben.
	OK, so Joe Scarborough made the connection complete yesterday when he suggested on his show that anybody who supports President Trump is by necessity supporting white supremacist terror attacks.
	For those of you who are funding Donald Trump's reelection campaign, you may want to take note that because you keep writing checks to this president, it's on you.
	It really is.
	It's all on you because you are funding this white supremacist campaign CEOs.
	You really are.
	Business people, millionaires and billionaires, it's your money that is funding this white supremacy.
	Because you won't tell him to stop.
	Who's not telling him to stop when he said all the bad stuff that he said in the past?
	I'm pretty sure a lot of people were telling him to stop.
	And by the way, if you support Trump in his re-election bid because you don't trust Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden to run the country, this does not make you a white supremacist.
	The attempt to tie politics to this event is a deliberate attempt to elect a Democrat to the White House.
	That's what this is about.
	And here's how you can tell.
	So today, the media actually started to cover this thing the way they should cover it.
	So the New York Times yesterday ran a ridiculous and bizarre headline.
	The ridiculous and bizarre headline, which I pointed out yesterday, was something to the effect of, Donald Trump condemns racism, but says nothing about guns.
	And as I pointed out, that is not actually, here's the exact headline.
	It was, Trump condemns white supremacy, but doesn't propose gun laws after shooting.
	And as I pointed out, that's not journalism.
	That is the New York Times saying what they wish he had said, not what he said.
	What he actually said was that white supremacy is evil.
	Wouldn't that be the headline?
	Trump, white supremacy is evil.
	Very easy headline to write.
	Trump condemns white supremacy.
	That's where the headline ends.
	Okay, so I pointed that out yesterday.
	Well, apparently the editors at the New York Times actually got the message.
	And so their headline on the front page of the New York Times today was, quote, Trump urges unity versus racism.
	Trump urges unity versus racism.
	That is a factually true headline.
	And now, you may think that it's disingenuous.
	You may think, as Don Lemon does, that it rings hollow.
	But the actual headline, if you are a news person, is that Trump urges unity versus racism.
	That's not a biased headline.
	That is a very straightforward headline.
	The entire left went insane.
	Beto O'Rourke came out and said it was disgusting the New York Times had run that headline.
	Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, as is her want, accused the New York Times of white supremacism.
	So I guess it was Nancy Pelosi three weeks ago.
	Now it's the New York Times pushing white supremacism, apparently.
	Nate Silver.
	Who is at 538 and obviously is of the political left, said, not sure Trump urges unity versus racism.
	Sorry, put that back up for a second.
	Nate Silver said, not sure Trump urges unity versus racism is how I would have framed the story.
	And then AOC says, let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by and often relies upon the cowardice of mainstream institutions.
	Weird.
	I remember that time that Trump called the New York Times fake news and everybody was like, oh my god, that right there is an attack on the First Amendment.
	It's an attack on the press.
	When AOC says that the New York Times is forwarding white supremacy, I guess that's not an attack on the press.
	Because it's AOC and we all love AOC, right?
	I mean, she is the wisest, most benevolent, most beautiful among us, the most brilliant.
	Thus, when she rips into the New York Times as an institution of white supremacy, Filled with cowardice.
	Not a problem at all.
	So what did the New York Times do?
	The New York Times switched its front page.
	Not kidding.
	Because of blowback from the left.
	Because many on the left were suggesting they were going to cancel their subscriptions over the headline.
	The factually accurate headline.
	The New York Times reversed itself and pulled down that headline and put up a new headline.
	The headline was assailing hate but not guns.
	Now.
	That is not, in fact, it's not actually a factual headline.
	The president actually called for certain gun regulations, including red flag regulations.
	That is editorializing, right?
	But not blank is not a factual reportage decision.
	That is an editorializing decision.
	That's the kind of headline that I could write after every Barack Obama speech.
	Barack Obama endorses X, but not Y. Y being a thing I wanted him to endorse.
	That's editorializing.
	So the New York Times, a paper that used to be founded, it used to be their slogan.
	Their slogan used to be, without fear or favor.
	It was a statement made by the founder of the New York Times about 100 years ago.
	Without fear or favor?
	Well forget that, now it's fear of the left means that we will favor the left.
	So they're going to switch the headline.
	Why?
	Because it would undercut the narrative that the left is attempting to drive if Trump actually did urge unity versus racism.
	It's amazing.
	And speaking of upholding the leftist narrative, speaking of upholding that leftist narrative, The CNN ran a piece today, and the piece was about the politics of the Dayton, Ohio shooter.
	Now, a couple of things can be true.
	One, the Dayton, Ohio shooter was not overtly political in his shooting, meaning he did not release a manifesto and say, here is why I'm committing this act of evil, as the El Paso shooter did.
	And that is a valid distinction, because to treat them as equally politically motivated in the absence of evidence that the Dayton shooting was politically motivated would be dishonest.
	However, Are we going to pretend that if the El Paso shooting had happened, and there were no manifesto, and then it turns out that the guy's social media postings were littered with white supremacist disgusting trash, or Trump endorsements, that that wouldn't have been first and foremost in the media coverage?
	Are we really going to pretend that's how this works?
	So CNN runs a piece, and I'll explain in just a second what the piece is, and the left loses its mind.
	How dare CNN cover actual news?
	How dare they do it?
	It undercuts the narrative.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, How about something that we can all agree on, at least until the left decides we can't agree on it?
	Saving money.
	Honey, it's a free tool that you download to your computer's browser.
	While you shop online, Honey scans the internet for coupon codes and other discounts, and then it automatically applies the coupon with the biggest savings to your cart at checkout, just like magic.
	So, you might ask, how do I know that Honey has my back?
	Well, because they've saved me probably hundreds of dollars at this point, given the fact that I have Honey running in the background of my computer.
	Every time I shop, anywhere from Amazon to Walmart to Costco, There are Honey discounts that are going to be applied so long as they can be found.
	Not only did Honey test over 1 billion promo codes last year, it actually applied 185,067,086 working codes to people's orders.
	That is a lot of real life savings.
	And again, you don't have to think about whether they're going to cover a particular site upon which you shop, you just let it run in the background of your computer, and if they can save you money, they will.
	There's really no reason not to use Honey.
	It's free to use.
	It's easy to install on your computer in just two clicks.
	Don't overthink that promo box ever again.
	Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
	That's joinhoney.com slash Ben.
	Honey online savings simplified.
	Okay, so.
	The CNN runs this piece and the piece talks about the politics of the person who is responsible of the shooter in Dayton, Ohio.
	And this apparently is very, very bad.
	Very bad.
	You're not allowed to talk about his politics.
	The left goes nuts.
	Why is CNN even running a story about the politics of the Dayton, Ohio shooter?
	We don't even know that the shooting was politically motivated.
	Right.
	Number one, we don't know that it wasn't politically motivated, but also necessary to note that if we're now going to hold to the standard that only politically motivated shootings ought to be covered in a political way, I'm all for that standard.
	Now you're going to have to go back in time and undo what you did with Gabby Giffords and Sarah Palin, where you attributed the shooting of Gabby Giffords by an insane person to Sarah Palin saying that Gabby Giffords shouldn't be re-elected with a target map of her face.
	Okay, you guys are gonna have to undo the whole routine where you suggested that the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting was a result of Republican homophobia.
	You're gonna have to undo all that stuff, because it seems to me that every time somebody does something you don't like, you go and dig up their political profile, and then you attempt to link it to broader right-wing concerns.
	So if this is the new standard, then have at it, guys.
	I feel like that's a better standard.
	But, if the standard right now is that we don't know, number one, whether this was political or not, or number two, we're gonna hold by your usual standard, which is we dig up the politics of a person who did something evil, and then attribute to everybody else who holds any of those political stances the evil of this person, and then you guys are gonna have to deal with the fact that this particular Dayton shooter was an Elizabeth Warren supporter, who was openly socialist, who is a far-left kook.
	A Twitter account, according to CNN, that appears to belong to Dayton mass shooter, I'm not going to say his name, retweeted extreme left-wing and anti-police posts, as well as tweets supporting Antifa or anti-fascist protesters.
	The most recent tweet of the account was on August 3rd, the day of the shooting.
	He retweeted a post saying, Millennials have a message for the Joe Biden generation.
	Hurry up and die.
	Police don't know what motivated this person.
	It is also true that his politics are far left.
	It is obvious that his politics are far left.
	In the hours before the Dayton shooting, the Twitter account liked several tweets about the shooting in El Paso, including one supporting gun control and others that called the El Paso shooting suspect a terrorist and a white supremacist.
	The account retweeted messages supporting Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
	Okay, so apparently it's very bad for CNN to report this.
	including one that said these people are monsters and multiple posts condemning police and supporting antifa protesters who often use violent tactics.
	OK, so apparently it's very bad for CNN to report this.
	Kellyanne Conway tweeted out the CNN piece and she was immediately accused of doing something evil for tweeting out the CNN piece.
	Pretty astonishing, pretty.
	I mean, this is our great journalist.
	They're telling us not only what we should cover, but what we should not cover.
	So we shouldn't cover this stuff.
	Why?
	Because of the person's political convictions.
	Now, as I said, two things can be true at once.
	One, we don't know that his politics drove the shooting, and thus it shouldn't be covered in the same way as El Paso.
	And two, if this person were on the right, it would be covered exactly the same way as El Paso by the media.
	Because that is what our media do.
	The bravest and finest among us.
	Because, unfortunately, it doesn't back their narrative that violence is associated solely with the right.
	Anything that doesn't fit with that narrative has to be ignored by the media, which is, of course, why it wasn't a national news story when a person quoting AOC attacked an ICE detainment facility like two weeks ago.
	It's why the Bernie Sanders congressional baseball shooting, the supporter of Bernie Sanders who did that, it's why that was out in the news inside of a week.
	And it's why we are still not seeing any coverage today Of, for example, far-left protesters at Mitch McConnell's house who are standing outside shouting, massacre Mitch McConnell.
	They're really shouting this, massacre Mitch.
	Here's some of the video from outside Mitch McConnell's house.
	Mitch McConnell was home, by the way, because he broke his shoulder.
	It's why nobody on the left will cover the fact that so many members of the left are celebratory about the fact that Rand Paul was injured by his neighbor a year ago.
	In some sort of dispute.
	Rand Paul tweeted out recently that he's not able to perform his full congressional duties because he has to have a piece of his lung removed.
	You should see the replies to the tweet, all from members of the left, talking about why he deserves it.
	Here's some of the video outside Mitch McConnell's house last night.
	We're at McConnell's house.
	This b**** thinks he's about to get some rest.
	Not if the children that you're kidnapping can't get any rest!
	Not if families who are getting murdered can't get any rest!
	F*** your thoughts and prayers, Mitch.
	F*** you.
	F*** your wife.
	F*** everything you stand for.
	We can't even call white men terrorists.
	They've been terrorists since the beginning of this godd* country, b*h.
	You a terrorist, Mitch.
	Just stab the m***h in the heart, please.
	F*** you.
	F* your mama, f* Mitch. F*** I.
	Now again, I'm not going to attribute this to the entire left, because this isn't the entire left, but this is a person of the left and a group of the left who are outside Mitch McConnell's house with signs that say hashtag massacre Mitch.
	That trended on Twitter yesterday.
	Wajahat Ali, who is a CNN commentator and New York Times contributor, he tweeted out, hashtag Massacre Moscow Mitch is trending.
	I still have faith in America.
	Then he deleted it, obviously.
	So it's...
	Again, this sort of notion that the political rhetoric on one side is driving the great divide in our country is insipid.
	Yes, Donald Trump makes our political rhetoric worse and has been doing so for several years.
	And yes, Democrats also have been doing this for a long time.
	But to attribute white supremacist shootings to the right is no more honest than to attribute the shooting in Dayton, Ohio to the left more broadly.
	It's a particular narrative, and the fact that the left is now trying to undermine and really underscore the narrative of their choice by cracking down on members of the media who are pointing out facts that do not align with that trend is pretty obvious evidence of what exactly so many folks on the left are trying to do.
	Now, in just a second, we're going to talk about some of the gun control measures that folks on the left are talking about, and then we want to get to the trade war with China, which is obviously a massive issue and is going to impact your life.
	The economy could see a severe downturn if this sort of stuff continues.
	First, you're going to need to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
	When you do, You get the rest of this show live.
	You get two additional hours of the show every single day.
	When you get the $99 a year subscription, you get this, the leftist year's hot or cold tumbler.
	It is magnificent.
	It is also jocular for those who don't know what a joke is.
	Go check us out over at dailywire.com.
	Please subscribe.
	It helps insulate us from the evil of a left that wishes to censor all of their opponents by lumping us in with some of the most evil people on earth.
	You're not those people.
	You're a good person who supports conservative ideals or at least free conversation.
	If you're not a conservative, please go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So in the aftermath of this mass shooting, obviously, Democrats are talking about their gun control proposals.
	It is amazing how so many of the folks in the media are going to members of the left as though it is the responsibility of members of the left Members of the Democratic Party to grant absolution to President Trump for the El Paso shooting, which assumes number one that Trump is responsible for the El Paso shooting, which is not true.
	And two, assumes that Democrats are in any sort of moral position to grant absolution for Trump's rhetoric.
	For what happened in El Paso or anything like that.
	I'll give you an example.
	Chris Matthews over there.
	I'm going to be safe.
	Rolling in here.
	Got Harold messed up.
	Looking all weird.
	Very upset about what happened over the weekend.
	Talking to Kamala Harris.
	Kamala Harris, who supports Al Sharpton.
	Kamala Harris, who thinks Al Sharpton's a wonderful guy.
	A guy who helped, allegedly, incite two riots in New York City.
	Here I am.
	Going to talk to Kamala Harris.
	And we'll ask Pope Kamala about whether she can exonerate Trump of these charges.
	He does things that cause bad behaviors, and in this case, his kinds of words encourage the kind of action that we've seen in El Paso.
	Is he educable?
	Atypical?
	Educable.
	Can he be educated?
	Will this educate him?
	He seemed to pull back on Ilhan Omar this week.
	He seemed to pull back.
	He's not educable.
	He can't be corrected.
	Maya Angelou told us a long time ago, people tell you who they are the first time.
	Believe it.
	He has told us who he is.
	Is he educable?
	Can we teach him?
	Does he like vegetables?
	Educable Vegetables.
	Chris Matthews of MHD.
	Tell me about Kamala.
	Can we teach him?
	Tell me more about Al Sharpton Kamala.
	So what exactly are these Democrats going to do with their newfound moral bravado?
	What are they going to do?
	Well, according to both Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, they're just going to cram down on the American people what they want on gun control.
	Now, if you're on the right and you say, well, I'm never going to vote these people into office because, hey, they're going to cram down gun control on me.
	According to the left, this makes you a white supremacist because obviously you'd have to support Trump in order to defeat Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren declaring that the Second Amendment no longer applies because tyranny.
	We've seen this sort of escalation and horrible shooting after horrible shooting.
	What would you be able to do as president that's different from the track record that we've seen?
	On the first day that I'm president, the Republicans want to try to block things, then we get rid of the filibuster.
	And we go with a majority vote.
	I will do everything I can by executive order, but I will also lead on the argument of getting rid of the filibuster so that by a majority we can do what the American people have sent us there to do.
	Okay, so she's not actually going to propose a policy, but she is going to say that she will do it alone from the top of the federal government.
	Kamala Harris does the exact same thing.
	She says she's going to use executive action.
	They still haven't made an actual proposal, by the way.
	They're just explaining how they're going to seize power that is not delegated to them under the Constitution.
	Is there any other action you're considering when you look at these, for example, two most recent mass shootings that unfortunately, tragically, sadly, there have been so many of them in recent years?
	Right, so under the Harris administration, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to pull their act together on this and put a bill on my desk for signature.
	And if they do not, I will take executive action as you mentioned.
	And in particular, put in place a comprehensive background check requirement.
	I'll also make sure that we give the ATF the resources that it needs to take the licenses of gun dealers who violate the law.
	Okay, so again, there she is explaining that she is going to just violate the Constitution wholesale.
	Right, they have 100 days to do something I want, otherwise I'm just going to do it myself.
	Which, of course, is what it says in Article 1 of the Constitution when it grants legislative power to the President, so long as the President can't get Congress to do what they want.
	What do Democrats actually want?
	Beto O'Rourke really spilled it.
	He was on with Jon Favreau on Pod Save America, and he explained that what he actually wants is just gun confiscation broad-scale across the nation.
	I'm sure this is going to go great.
	The most effective gun control measures have been gun licenses and mandatory buyback programs like they did in Australia.
	Would you be open to those proposals as president?
	Yes, and I'm open to them right now as a candidate.
	Absolutely has to be part of the conversation.
	And if at the end of the day it's going to save lives, if it's going to prevent the kind of tragedies that we saw in El Paso or Gilroy or Dayton or this weekend in Chicago or all over this country on a daily basis, Then let's move forward and do it.
	I know.
	Yeah, there it is.
	So he's just going to look for an, when he says gun buyback in Australia, it was a mandatory buyback, meaning that it was gun confiscation.
	By the way, worthy of note, Australia had pretty much no mass shootings before they had the gun confiscation.
	And in terms of the murder rate, the gun murder rate in Australia declined slower than the United States murder rate from guns at the same exact, over the same exact period.
	While the number of guns in circulation in the United States rose dramatically.
	So none of this actually matches up.
	But you wonder why the right is uncomfortable with left policy prescriptions?
	Because you guys keep saying you're going to grab our guns, and they're like, no, no, no.
	Why do you keep saying we're going to?
	Because you keep saying you're going to grab our guns.
	That would be the reason.
	Right there.
	Okay.
	In other news, and what will end up being very consequential news for 2020, what we are looking at right now in the stock market, what we are looking at in the markets more broadly, is fairly disastrous.
	The market seems to have stabilized a little bit today in the aftermath of a massive drop-off over the past week in the stock market.
	The stock market dropped from about 27,300 about a week ago, all the way down to a low of 25,700, so dropped about 1,600 points over the course of a week.
	And that was largely due to fears of a trade war between the United States and China.
	And that's because a bunch of different measures are now being taken both by the United States and by the Chinese as this trade war escalates.
	Yesterday, the Dow had plunged 760 points.
	It was the worst day of 2019.
	The yield curve inverted.
	The bond yields went all the way down to the very bottom of the deck because everybody started rushing to buy bonds because they were afraid of the upcoming downturn in the economy, possibly.
	The Nasdaq fell for a sixth straight session.
	The S&P 500 also posted a long six-day losing streak.
	Tech stocks were particularly hard hit.
	That's because China, which has historically controlled its currency, the yuan, allowed it to fall to its lowest level on Monday against the dollar in more than a decade.
	The onshore yuan broke above seven per U.S.
	dollar and traded around 7.05.
	That's been seen typically as an important kind of inflection point.
	Now, is it really that much higher than 6.95?
	Not really, but it is seen as a move by China to devalue its currency in order to fight back against the Trumpian tariffs.
	The idea being if they devalue their currency, it makes it easier for them to export product and harder for them to import product.
	That is one way of fighting a tariff.
	President Trump immediately came back and suggested that China was a currency manipulator.
	He tweeted out, China dropped the price of their currency to an almost historic low.
	It's called currency manipulation.
	Are you listening, Federal Reserve?
	This is a major violation which will greatly weaken China over time.
	Okay, that last part makes no sense.
	If you believe that China's devaluation of its currency weakens China, why are you calling on the Federal Reserve to inflate the currency?
	That would presumably weaken the United States.
	Trump's understanding of economics is flawed at best.
	At best.
	When I say flawed at best, I mean it's really, really terrible.
	I mean, Trump does not understand international trade.
	He doesn't really understand inflation.
	He doesn't understand any of these things.
	Now, if you want to engage in a trade war with China, you actually do have to make the case for why the United States should be engaging in a trade war with China.
	Now, there are folks out there like Neal Ferguson, the historian, who have suggested that we should engage in effectively a second Cold War with China.
	That China is a growing power.
	They've been expending their resources on military might in the South China Sea.
	They've been expanding into heretofore unknown areas.
	They have been cramming down political tyranny on Hong Kong.
	Yeah, Trump, by the way, that would have been an obvious point where Trump could have said something, right?
	I mean, the Hong Kong protesters are attempting to resist Chinese intervention in Hong Kong.
	When Hong Kong was handed over to the Chinese by the British in the 90s, the assumption was that Hong Kong would be self-governing and that China would not actually be in control of every aspect of Hong Kong life.
	That obviously has turned out not to be true.
	There are these massive protests, including like one-fifth of the population out in the streets in Hong Kong, and Trump basically repeated the language of the Chinese.
	It's bewildering to me.
	If you're going to make the case that China is a powerful international enemy, that they are stealing our technology, that they're building their own 5G networks to compete specifically with American 5G, that they are using tech as a weapon against the United States, that they are building up their military resources, that they are backing some of the world's worst regimes, including North Korea, that they're cracking down on Democrats who would have been our allies if they were independent in Hong Kong.
	If you want to make that case, you can certainly make that case.
	And then you have to make the case to the American people that this is a war that we can win, that it will require sacrifice from the American people.
	You have to be honest with the American people about what this is going to do.
	Honesty is requisite.
	Otherwise, here's what Americans see.
	They see a bunch of fluctuation and randomness.
	In this trade war?
	And then they see their prices going up and American businesses shutting down.
	Because China has now declared, on a governmental level, they're no longer going to buy American agricultural products.
	You know who that's going to hurt?
	All the farmers in the rural areas in the states Trump needs to win.
	It's gonna hurt Trump in Iowa, it's gonna hurt him in Wisconsin, it's gonna hurt him in Ohio, in Michigan, it's gonna hurt him in a lot of the areas that are heavily reliant on trade with China.
	So if Trump knows what he's doing, he needs to explain it to us.
	Because otherwise, how do you expect the American people to take the sacrifice you're asking of them?
	Trump announced last week the United States would impose a 10% tariff on $300 billion worth of Chinese imports.
	The tariff will take effect on September 1st.
	Trump's announcement came after Chinese and U.S.
	officials discussed trade earlier this week as the two countries tried to restart talks.
	Trump tweeted out this morning that the Chinese are going to come in September and we're going to try to restart those talks and get these tariffs over with.
	Everybody is deeply fearful that China's devaluation of its currency is the precursor to something else, which is as everybody rushes into the bond market to buy bonds and as the yields go down, that China actually forces the yields back up by selling off American bonds on the open market.
	Stephen Moore, who's an economic advisor to President Trump.
	Stephen Moore came out, he said, I think we may have miscalculated here on exactly what the Chinese are willing to do.
	Well, yes, because they're a dictatorship.
	They don't care about their own people.
	Yes, the living standards have been rising in China, but China has an alternative solution if people start to get too uppity with them, and that is kill them or gulag them.
	China is a tyranny, lest we forget.
	For all the talk about them being friendly and wonderful, Xi Jinping, the president of China, is a dictator who just reinstalled himself effectively for life.
	Nonetheless, you know, Trump has declared China a currency manipulator.
	Again, if you want the Cold War, you got to explain why we're doing it.
	You do need to explain it.
	And you can make that case.
	China is a nefarious actor, as I've said repeatedly on the world stage.
	They are a geopolitical threat to the United States, probably America's top geopolitical threat.
	But you actually have to make that case.
	And when you say that they're a currency manipulator, by the way, even that is not particularly unclear.
	The fact is that they were artificially deflating their currency for years.
	Now it's pretty obvious that the devaluation that has happened is honestly kind of a result of the tariffs themselves.
	When you tariff other countries, what you end up doing is immediately increasing the value of your own currency and devaluing other currencies.
	Why?
	Well, because there are fewer American dollars in circulation, which means that the value of American dollars goes up because there are fewer of them in general international circulation.
	So it's not particularly clear that China actually was involved in currency manipulation this time.
	It is clear that China is willing to fight this trade war.
	Nonetheless, Trump thinks that being tough on China is going to work because it worked with Mexico.
	Now, Maybe that's true.
	Maybe it's not true because the Mexican government is actually an extraordinarily weak government.
	The Mexican government is so weak that it's in many ways subject to the whims of Mexican drug cartels.
	The Chinese government is incredibly strong, so strong that it can keep a billion people under the auspices of an absolute tyranny.
	According to the Washington Post, Trump is increasingly acting based on his own intuition and analysis, not the advice of aides.
	In the increasingly fraught trade war with China, five people briefed on the action said, shattering a more cautious process that had yielded few positive results so far.
	The Treasury Department's formal announcement that it had labeled China a currency manipulator came six hours after Trump did it himself on social media.
	The people describing the White House process spoke on condition of anonymity, of course.
	They said White House officials were now expecting a long, drawn-out battle with Chinese leaders Even though Trump is acutely tuned in to stock market fluctuations.
	But Trump is convinced that the Chinese economy is suffering more than the U.S.
	economy from the conflict.
	Now, that's true.
	The Chinese economy is suffering more than the U.S.
	economy.
	The difference is that Trump can get voted out in 2020 if Xi Jinping is going to be there for as long as he's alive.
	Trump apparently also has felt validated that his hardball threats in other circumstances, including a recent tangle with Mexico over border security, seem to get at least some results, even if they scared investors in the short term.
	This has left aides, many of whom have preferred for the president to be more patient, to scramble to complete directives issued by President Trump.
	Stocks have been plunging as Trump and China have escalated the trade war.
	Some analysts are fearing an escalated U.S.-China currency war as well, not just a trade war, so a two-front war, a currency war of devaluation and a trade war.
	China allowed the value of its tightly controlled currency, according to the Post, to fall to an 11-year low on Monday, a move that threatens to hurt American producers by making their products more expensive for Chinese customers.
	The Treasury Department then called China a currency manipulator.
	They could go to the World Trade Organization, by the way, and file a complaint.
	You don't only have to do this in a bilateral process.
	Eswar Prasad, professor of trade at Cornell, said it could get very serious if trade tensions between China and the United States morph into a currency war.
	This could lead the United States to essentially shut down all imports from China.
	Some advisors, some economic advisors, a strategist named Masanari Takada over at Nomura, he says we could see a major market sell-off in the wake of all of this.
	Nomura says that they are warning the next sell-off could resemble a crisis-level plunge like the one that followed the Lehman Brothers collapse.
	Now, most people are predicting just a stock market correction down 10% and maybe a slight pullback in the stock market.
	Nomura is basing its view on data showing hedge funds fleeing the market and said more are set to exit when their algorithms are triggered by rising volatility.
	Remember, we have an election just a year and a half away.
	China has every interest in creating chaos in the American markets so they can get a Democrat in there.
	And the same thing has been true with Iran, which is why they are creating more chaos.
	Presumably with the promise that if a Democrat gets in there, then they back off of all of that.
	This is where a strong communications policy would be a very useful thing.
	This is where President Trump coming out and giving a speech on exactly what he's doing with China would be useful.
	The American people deserve to know.
	Otherwise, it just feels like chaos, and that chaos is gonna come out of people's pockets.
	Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then a quick thing that I hate, and we'll get out of here.
	So, things that I like.
	Speaking of Cold Wars, both in the United States and outside the United States, there's a new translation of a work that was written under Stalin, and therefore, Repeats a lot of Stalinist tropes, but is really kind of a fascinating window into how the censorship process worked in the USSR.
	It's called Stalingrad.
	The author is a man named Vasily Grozman.
	Grossman was both persecuted and praised by the Stalin regime.
	He's more famous for another work called Life and Fate, which is quite an amazing work that does concern the Stalin years.
	It was written after Stalin was dead.
	But Stalingrad, which just came out in a new translation by Robert Chandler and Elizabeth Chandler, is a great window into how the Russians viewed themselves in the middle of the Battle of Stalingrad.
	It obviously is extraordinarily praiseworthy towards Stalin and toward the Stalinist regime.
	Which is hard to read if you know the truth about Stalin, but the sort of legacy of Stalingrad was the defining moment in the mentality of a lot of Russians.
	It continues to be if you read a book called Secondhand Time, which is a fantastic compendium of how Russians think about themselves by a Nobel Prize winner in literature.
	The kind of mythos, the myth-making is very obvious in this book, Stalingrad by Vasily Grossman.
	It is a really well-written book.
	You can go check it out right now.
	It's a very long book.
	It's sort of Tolstoy-esque in its approach, but it's worth the read.
	Okay, let's see.
	Things that I hate.
	Well, breaking news, things that I hate.
	The New York Times has admitted that their original headline was a bad headline.
	So, Trump urges unity versus racism.
	Apparently it was a bad headline.
	The editor of the New York Times has now backed down completely.
	He acknowledged that his newspaper messed up with the front page headline over its lead story.
	They say it was a mistake that prompted, this is according to the Daily Beast, it was a mistake that prompted All sorts of consternation, widespread criticism from high-profile Trump detractors once images of the paper's front page surfaced online on Monday night.
	It also provoked attacks on the Times' political coverage generally, even vows to cancel subscriptions.
	Baquette texted the Daily Beast it was written on deadline when it was passed along for approval.
	We all saw it was a bad headline and changed it pretty quickly.
	Of course, Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, which is a leftist think tank, Was typical of the Times' army of critics implying the paper had caved in to Trump's constant attacks on the news media.
	No, actually, they caved in to your attacks on the news media.
	So it's very bad for Trump to attack the press.
	It's very good for the left to attack the press, obviously.
	And by the way, earns better results, apparently.
	That's exciting stuff.
	In case you didn't know, the New York Times hates Trump.
	In case you didn't know, the New York Times is happy to parrot all of the leftist talking points.
	All you have to do is take a look at their editorial page.
	But now, that has infused every aspect of their media coverage to the point where they can be bullied by the left into retracting their own media coverage.
	Other things that I hate today.
	It's actually a thing that I like because I like reality.
	But, as it turns out, raising the minimum wage in New York City leads people to cut hours and jobs.
	Shocker.
	According to the Wall Street Journal, more than six months after the $15 minimum wage went into effect in New York City, business leaders and owners say the increased labor costs have forced them to cut staff, eliminate work shifts, and raise prices.
	Many business owners say these changes were unintended consequences of the new minimum wage, which took effect at the beginning of the year.
	Yeah, you think?
	Shocker.
	It turns out that when you make policy with your gut instead of your brain, it has unintended consequences.
	I can't believe it.
	Not that every single study that has ever examined minimum wage has effectively found that there is not some giant bank full of Scrooge McDuck money that employers are swimming around in and holding back from their employees, and that increasing minimum wage inevitably means cutting hours and cutting jobs.
	Not that that is the most common finding in economics, but it's pretty common.
	It's a pretty common finding in economics.
	You mean that if you force me to pay my employees more, I'll force them to work less or fire them?
	I can't believe it.
	Shocker.
	I guess we're all supposed to be surprised by all of this.
	So, well done once again, City of New York, driving business out there as fast as humanly possible.
	Just very solid stuff.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	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.

▲