Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 7, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:34

In Love With Rage | Ep. 834

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A Democratic congressperson targets his own constituents for donating to President Trump, Democrats ramp up their policy extremism, and Republicans pursue a serious piece of gun control.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	A lot to get to today, but if it's too long, you can't read it.
	Let me just sum it up for you.
	Everything is garbage.
	A flaming dumpster fire of garbage.
	Everyone is garbage.
	Everything is garbage.
	That is the short story for today, because in a time, as I've been saying for the past several days, when we should all be unified, because this isn't tough.
	White supremacism.
	Evil.
	White supremacist terrorists.
	Evil.
	We should all be condemning them.
	We should all be on the same page.
	We should all be getting together and mourning and figuring out the best way to move forward.
	Instead, there's a political war going on where folks are so bent on savaging the other side that they are undermining any possibility at real change that actually would be a good idea.
	That would actually be a good idea.
	So we begin today with President Trump preparing to head to El Paso.
	Now, naturally, this is going to be divisive.
	The reason that it's divisive is because President Trump has made comments in the past that are incredibly divisive.
	But just as importantly, maybe more importantly at this point in a time when the president should be called upon to unify everybody, Democrats are more focused on blaming Trump for the actual shooting, as though Trump is either a white supremacist, which he is not, or as though he wanted to actually There are actual commentators on television the last couple days who are actually suggesting that what Trump wants is to kill Latinos.
	And this is the tone and tenor that we are now operating under thanks to a mainstream media that has a narrative to push.
	So we have Nicole Wallace yesterday on MSNBC who suggested openly that the president wanted Latinos exterminated.
	She then had to come out Do we actually have the clip of Nicole Wallace talking about this?
	She then had to come out and apologize for all of this.
	She said, I misspoke about Trump calling for an extermination of Latinos.
	My mistake was unintentional, and I'm sorry.
	Trump's constant assault on people of color and his use of the word invasion to describe the flow of immigrants is intentional and constant.
	So in other words, I'm sorry, but not sorry.
	Sorry, I said he wanted to exterminate all the Latinos.
	But really, he kind of wants to exterminate all the Latinos.
	Do we actually have the clip of Nicole Wallace talking about this?
	Yeah, here she is.
	What do you do when, certainly the last Republican president fought for, sought, and it's not ideal, but had 44% of the Latino vote.
	It was so politically powerful inside the last Republican administration.
	President Obama used the power of the presidency to try to pass comprehensive immigration reform with the Latino community, Latino leaders at the table.
	You don't have a president, as you said, talking about exterminating Latinos.
	It's not even...
	I'm talking about exterminating Latinos?
	Okay, so first of all, I'm not sure how you say that by mistake.
	That doesn't seem like a... It seems like she's pretty confident in her wording there.
	She sort of walks it back, sort of does not, but this is part of a pattern for a lot of the commentators, particularly on MSNBC.
	Mika Brzezinski.
	I'm old enough to remember when Mika Brzezinski was laughing it up, yucking it up with Donald Trump during the 2016 primaries.
	So was Joe Scarborough.
	Joe Scarborough suggested in January of 2016 he might run as Trump's running mate in January 2016, a month after Trump put forward that statement calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States.
	So how times have changed.
	Here's Mika Brzezinski suggesting that what Trump actually wants is the shootings.
	He wants the shootings.
	Which is an insane contention.
	Crazy!
	I mean, no evidence for that whatsoever, and a lot of evidence to the contrary.
	Here's Mika Brzezinski saying this yesterday.
	You have to ask the question, Chelle.
	And I'll ask you.
	Isn't it okay to deduce that at this point, this is what he wants?
	He is inciting hatred, inciting violence, inciting racism.
	If he doesn't unequivocally call it off and say, this is wrong, and we stand together against this, and we are doing this, this, and this to help fight hate crime.
	I mean, this is a president who Seems to want these things to happen.
	Once, once Latinos shot up in a Walmart, that's the... Okay, so we go from Barack Obama ripped on police departments around the country and called them systemically racist, and an evil Black Lives Matter associated activist went out and shot cops.
	Barack Obama was not responsible for that.
	Bernie Sanders suggested that Republicans wanted to kill millions with their health care reform plans.
	And one of his supporters went out and shot Congress people.
	That was not Bernie Sanders' fault.
	We have Mika Brzezinski openly suggesting that Donald Trump wants people shot, Latinos shot, at a Walmart.
	American citizens shot at a Walmart.
	That's what she's openly saying.
	And then you have Nicole Wallace, who says Trump wants to exterminate Latinos, then she has to walk that one back.
	You have an MSNBC regular named Frank Figliuzzi.
	I mean, they've gone, they've gone insane.
	The narrative has overwhelmed any sense of the factual situation on the ground and has overwhelmed any sense of decency.
	Because again, the fact is we should all be on the same page on this.
	This is so not difficult.
	Frank Figliuzzi, who I'd never heard of before, apparently he's a regular on MSNBC and also a former FBI analyst.
	So one of our intelligence operatives, he said yesterday, That when President Trump ordered the American flag flown at half-staff, and then ordered it to be flown at half-staff until August 8th, which would be tomorrow, so for half a week, that this is actually Trump signaling to Neo-Nazis, because August 8th is 8-8, and 8-8 is the last half of 14-88, and for those who don't know Neo-Nazi parlance, 14-88 is supposed to be the 14th, it's supposed to be
	8-8 is Heil Hitler in neo-nazi parlance because the 8th letter of the alphabet is H. Okay, so he's suggesting that, just to get this straight, it's not a conspiracy theory, right?
	According to this guy.
	Trump ordered the flags flown at half-staff until August 8th because 8-8 is Heil Hitler.
	I'm not kidding.
	This is a thing that was actually said on national television on MSNBC.
	The president said that we will fly our flags at half mast until August 8th.
	That's 8-8.
	Now, I'm not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary that's being demonstrated by the White House.
	The numbers 8-8 are very significant in neo-Nazi and white supremacy movement.
	Are you an insane person?
	Why?
	Because the letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet.
	And to them, the numbers 8-8 together stand for Heil Hitler.
	What?
	What?
	Uh-huh?
	What?
	By the way, the 14 in 1488 is the so-called 14 words that were coined by George Lincoln Rockwell.
	We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
	Lincoln Rockwell, of course, was the leader of the American Nazi Party, one of the more evil human beings to walk the planet over the last half century, or the last three quarters of a century.
	And second, we're going to get to what President Trump is actually saying, and then we're going to get to what he's been saying on Twitter, we're going to get to the egregious extent to which the left is going to push the narrative that everybody who disagrees with them is actually in league with a person who shot up innocents At a Walmart in El Paso.
	It's just, it's beyond maddening.
	It's actually crazy.
	And not only is it crazy, it's despicable, because it actually is making the country more dangerous.
	You want to talk about incitement?
	We'll talk about incitement in just one second.
	First, with that, it's time for a wake-up call with Black Rifle Coffee.
	So today, I am drinking their black roast.
	It is fantastic.
	Let me just tell you, Black Rifle Coffee, best coffee on the market, bar none.
	It is awesome.
	I mean, it has great flavor, it is strong, and it definitely gives you a kick in the pants.
	I have it every morning in prep for the show.
	With tons of different roasts to choose from, Black Rifle ships the best roast to order coffee direct to your door.
	And a portion of all Black Rifle's profits go to supporting veterans, law enforcement, fire, and first responder causes.
	When you drink Black Rifle coffee, you're supporting a company that gives back to veteran and first responder causes and serves coffee and culture to those who truly love America.
	This is not a politically correct coffee company that is worried about homeless people sleeping in its bathrooms to please the leftist media.
	Or rejecting first responders and police officers if somebody is offended in the store.
	This is a coffee company that serves you coffee and is run by veterans.
	They're just great.
	Get your wake-up call with Black Rifle Coffee.
	Visit BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	Get 20% off your first purchase.
	That's BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	For 20% off that first purchase.
	Again, BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	BlackRifleCoffee.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so, President Trump is about to head to El Paso.
	And he made a statement this morning, he was about to get into the helicopter, and he made a statement about white supremacism that is entirely appropriate and naturally the media went nuts over it because this is what we do now.
	I am concerned about the rise of any group of hate.
	I don't like it.
	Any group of hate, whether it's white supremacy, whether it's any other kind of supremacy, whether it's Antifa, whether it's any group of hate, I am very concerned about it, and I'll do something about it.
	There is nothing wrong with that statement.
	That is not him downplaying white supremacy.
	That is not him saying that there are good people on both sides of a march.
	That is not any of that.
	That is him explicitly saying that he hates white supremacy and he's going to fight white supremacy.
	That's what Mika Brzezinski was calling on him to do.
	But the left doesn't want to accept that Trump is making those moves, specifically because it undercuts the narrative that they are painting, which is that President Trump is actually an expositor of white nationalism and white supremacism.
	The argument the left is now making, and it is a disgusting, vile, divisive, polarizing, horrible argument, is that if you are anywhere to the right of Elizabeth Warren, then you are complicit in a shooting at an El Paso Walmart of Hispanics.
	That is what they're saying.
	Now that doesn't mean that Trump can be counted on to engage in the most proper possible way.
	He can't, right?
	Today, the president went on Twitter, and his worst nemesis, he went on Twitter and he started ripping into Beto O'Rourke.
	So Beto, who has been saying that he doesn't want Trump to come to El Paso, is obviously mouthing off in what I think is an inappropriate way, Trump is still the president of the United States.
	And him coming to El Paso in the midst of a tragedy makes perfect sense.
	Any other president would.
	But Trump decided to go right back at Beto in sort of the most puerile way, and it's unbecoming in a time of tragedy.
	It's unbecoming in a time of national mourning.
	He should just ignore Beto.
	He should rise above the fray.
	I know that's not Trump's MO, but guess what?
	It should be in a time when all of our minds should be with the victims in El Paso and not on the political infighting that Democrats seem to want to promote here.
	Trump tweeted out Beto, phony name to indicate Hispanic heritage, O'Rourke.
	Is that helpful in any way?
	Of course it is not.
	Is that something that is going to help Trump moving forward politically with suburban voters or as far as just the country generally?
	that 1% in the Democrat primary should respect the victims and law enforcement and be silent.
	Is that helpful in any way?
	Of course it is not.
	Is that something that is going to help Trump moving forward politically with suburban voters?
	Or as far as just the country generally, is that going to make the country better?
	Of course that is not.
	And the media are running with all of this, that Trump is a divisive figure, that he shouldn't show up, so CNN has a headline today, critics question whether Trump visit to El Paso and Dayton will help healing.
	Well, no bleep, Sherlock.
	I mean, of course they're questioning that.
	This is part of the narrative, and it's also part of the entire debate.
	According to CNN, Trump will travel Wednesday to the scenes of back-to-back mass shootings that stunned the nation and left at least 31 people dead.
	But his planned appearances in Ohio and Texas aren't being well-received by all local officials, some of whom say it would be best if the commander-in-chief avoided their grief-stricken cities.
	Exact plans for Trump's visits to Dayton and El Paso haven't been released and were still being finalized by the White House advance teams on Tuesday afternoon.
	There was the same sort of hubbub in the run up to President Trump visiting Pittsburgh in the aftermath of the Tree of Life shooting.
	Everything went fine.
	He went to Pittsburgh.
	It was fine.
	There were a few protesters.
	That was it.
	But obviously that's not really what the media want here.
	What the media want here is not a unifying moment.
	What they want is a divisive moment.
	According to CNN, the question his critics have is whether he will comfort their cities in mourning or deepen the divisions.
	Well, I could ask the same question of the media.
	Are they interested in comforting the cities in mourning?
	Or are they interested in deepening political divisions for political purposes?
	CNN says, Okay, all of that may be true.
	Okay, all of that may be true.
	It is also true that Barack Obama was a highly divisive president, just in a very different and more subtle way.
	I'm not going to equate the level of the rhetoric of the two, but there is no question that Barack Obama was deeply divisive, and people had similar questions specifically.
	I mean, he showed up to Dallas after the Dallas police shooting and nobody said he shouldn't.
	Nobody said he shouldn't come.
	In any case.
	What all of this leads up to is the conclusion that for a lot of folks on the left, they're actually unhappy at Trump now trying to do the unity routine.
	They're unhappy about it because what they would prefer is that unity not take place.
	What they would prefer is the continuing narrative that Trump is a white supremacist and his supporters are white supremacists.
	This is why Joe Biden is planning an entire address in Iowa today about white supremacism in which presumably he will blame President Trump for the shooting in El Paso, Texas.
	And it's not just Joe Biden.
	Over the last 24 hours, something truly egregious has been done by a congressperson named Joaquin Castro.
	So, Joaquin Castro is the congressperson from San Antonio.
	And he is engaged in the widespread myth-making now on the part of members of the media and on the left, that everyone on the right is supportive of a mass shooting.
	So they use the transitive property.
	It goes something like this.
	President Trump is responsible for the El Paso shooting.
	That's not true, but they say it.
	Trump is responsible for the El Paso shooting.
	Then they say, therefore, anyone who supports Trump is, by the transitive property, responsible for the El Paso shooting.
	So Joaquin Castro is Julián Castro's brother.
	He's a congressperson from San Antonio.
	And he put out a target list, basically.
	He tweeted out, sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump, the owner of Bill Miller Barbecue, owner of Historic Pearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc.
	Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as invaders.
	And then he put out a full list, a list of 44 different people.
	I don't believe that's the actual full list of everybody who maxed out to Trump in San Antonio.
	I've seen the list from the FEC and it's a little bit longer, but in any case, he puts out a list of 44 people in his own district with their names who are funding Trump.
	The idea being that he would like to see them bear some sort of public scrutiny, that he would like to see them harassed, that he would like to see something bad happen to them.
	This is doxing.
	Now, people are saying, well, it's publicly available information.
	Yes, doxing can be publicly available information.
	The question is whether you are driving people to target people based on their political viewpoint.
	And that's exactly what Joaquin Castro is doing right there.
	He's not trying to hide the ball.
	This stuff, by the way, does have consequences.
	We live in a time when people were standing outside Mitch McConnell's house, outside his home.
	That's publicly available information.
	It is also disgusting.
	People were standing outside Mitch McConnell's home and chanting at him and calling for his death.
	People have shown up outside Tucker Carlson's home over the last 24 hours.
	A member of Antifa in New York, a self-described member of Antifa in New York, called for people in L.A.
	to show up at my house and harass me or kill me on Twitter.
	We filed the appropriate police reports.
	It is in law enforcement hands now.
	And as always, I do have 24-7 security.
	You want to make the country a worse place?
	This is how you do it right here.
	This is making the country a worse place because not only is the suggestion that people are responsible for the shooting, who are not responsible for the shooting, the idea is we are now going to publicly put their faces out there and make them targets.
	Because, I mean, basically, Joaquin Castro is calling these people accessories to murder.
	He's saying Trump is an accessory to murder, and then these people are accessories to Trump.
	So they are accessories to murder.
	There's a conspiracy to murder, and therefore these people are part of that.
	They are part of that problem.
	How do you think people are going to react to that?
	You want to talk about heightening rhetoric and incitement?
	This is a lot closer to that than anything that Trump has said about illegal immigration.
	His statements about illegal immigration are generalized and somewhat vague.
	They are not targeted at specific individuals.
	What is being done right here, I mean, the media went nuts when Trump just said Elijah Cummings is a crap congressperson.
	The media went crazy when someone took a picture of AOC eating a burger in public.
	And now the media are covering for this.
	They're covering for Joaquin Castro, putting out a target list of people who donated to Trump, which is specifically designed to incite action against those people.
	There's no other reason to put out the list.
	It's why it's being done.
	It's disgusting.
	It's divisive.
	It's wrong.
	But Democrats are out there defending it because this runs as part of their narrative.
	We'll get to more of this in just a second.
	I mean, the country's coming apart at the seams, it feels like.
	That's what it feels like.
	And, as I'll explain, What Joaquin Castro did right here?
	What he's doing?
	actually helps prevent exactly the kind of action that we may need in order to prevent future shootings.
	I'll explain why that is in just one second.
	First, let's talk about safety.
	So as I've explained, I have 24-7 security.
	I have armed security around me at all times.
	But even if I didn't, I'm deeply worried about security, and I want to know who's ringing the doorbell at my house.
	Whether I'm in town or out of town, I want to know what's happening on my property.
	This is why I use Ring.
	Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
	You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras, that protects millions of people everywhere.
	Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
	So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you'll get an alert and be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone.
	I love Ring because, again, it makes me feel safe at home, makes my wife feel safe at home.
	And it means that I always have one eye on my property, even if I'm not there.
	As a subscriber, you have a special offer on a Ring welcome kit available right now at ring.com slash betting.
	Again, that's ring.com slash ben.
	The kit includes a video doorbell and a Chime Pro, which is just what you need to start building a ring of security around your home today.
	Go to ring.com slash ben.
	That is ring.com slash ben.
	Keep your property safe.
	Make sure that your house is safe and secure.
	It's a dangerous time, even if it weren't.
	There are people who are burglars.
	Ring your doorbell.
	Try to make sure you're not home before they rob your place.
	You should have a Ring device on your home.
	Go check them out right now.
	Ring.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so, Joaquin Castro tweets that out.
	Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, he tweets back, "Targeting and harassing Americans because of their political beliefs is shameful and dangerous.
	What happened to when they go low, we go high?
	Or does that no longer matter when your brother is polling at 1%?
	Americans deserve better." Joaquin Castro then fired back and he said, "No one was targeted or harassed in my post.
	You know that.
	No, we don't know that.
	That's exactly what you're doing.
	What is the point of putting that out there if you don't mean to target or harass them?
	Of course you're doing that.
	They didn't sound off and then you're retweeting them.
	All they did was give a donation.
	We've seen this sort of stuff in California before.
	In California, after Proposition 8, there were gay activists who decided to go after anyone who had donated to the proposition in favor of upholding traditional marriage.
	All of that ended with the firing of Brandon Eich from Mozilla.
	It ended with the undermining of a restaurant in Hollywood where one of the founders had given money to the Prop 8 cause, holding the same position on traditional marriage at the time that was held by one Barack H. Obama.
	Okay, so that was the traditional position in the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party.
	We know what this is about.
	Don't pretend that you're putting out this list out of a good-hearted attempt to simply say to these people, guys, why are you giving to Trump?
	You have a phone, Joaquin.
	Just because these people gave money to somebody you oppose does not mean that you outing them publicly and then attempting to drive ire at their businesses.
	To drive boycotts at their businesses, which is what this is about.
	Let's be very real about what is going on here.
	And the left has been doing this with everybody on the right for years.
	Folks on the left have been attempting to boycott advertisers on shows like mine.
	They've been attempting to go after businesses of people who are on the right.
	I've never seen anything like this from the right to the left, by the way.
	It's very rare you see something like this from the right to the left.
	And usually, many people on the right look askance at folks when they do this sort of stuff.
	But on the left, this is apparently celebrated by public officials.
	So Joaquin Castro tweets out, You know that.
	All that info is routinely published.
	You're trying to distract from the racism that has overtaken the GOP and the fact that President Trump spends donor money on thousands of ads about Hispanics invading America.
	Again, this is a misread.
	Even the invasion language that Trump uses is not about quote-unquote Hispanics invading America.
	It's about illegal immigrants.
	Yeah, I don't use the invasion language because it is not an invasion.
	It is a bunch of people who want to cross the border because most of them are looking for a better life.
	They're not looking to invade on behalf of any other country, on behalf of any other lifestyle.
	That is not an invasion.
	When Trump talks about an invasion, he is not actually talking.
	About every Hispanic crossing the border.
	And Joaquin Castro knows that.
	It's a deliberate misread.
	Anyway, Joaquin Castro continues.
	Donald Trump has put a target on the back of millions.
	So this is him making explicit what was implicit before.
	Trump is responsible, presumably, for the murder of Hispanics in that El Paso Walmart.
	He says, and you're too cowardly or agreeable to say anything about it.
	How about I stop mentioning Trump's public campaign donors and he stops using their money for ads that fuel hate?
	So in other words, I'm going to keep going with this.
	I'm going to keep going with this.
	Steve Scalise responded.
	And Scalise, of course, has some experience with folks who have taken leftist rhetoric so seriously that they shoot him and almost kill him.
	Steve Scalise, the House Minority Whip, he says, Which is, of course, true.
	He does.
	personally targeted for their political views.
	Period.
	This isn't the game.
	It's dangerous and lives are at stake.
	I know this firsthand, which is of course true.
	He does.
	He almost died.
	If the events of the past weekend taught us anything, says Scalise, it's that we need to stop seeing our neighbors as political enemies.
	This kind of dangerous targeting isn't how we heal our nation.
	But this is the point.
	I think there are a lot of folks on the political left who are not interested in healing the nation.
	They think the only way to heal the nation is to excise the cancer, and the cancer would be anybody who's on the right or who supports President Trump or both.
	Rashida Tlaib tweeted out in support of Joaquin Castro.
	Chairman Castro, they don't like it when you name their donors.
	The public needs to know who funds racism.
	This comes from a woman who is publicly associated with people who are open terror supporters, Rashida Tlaib.
	And there are pictures of her with people who support Hamas.
	This is not, and she's celebrating with them.
	Like one of them gave her a picture upon her swearing in.
	So Rashida Tlaib supporting that as well.
	And Joe Scarborough came out in dramatic support yesterday.
	He tweeted about this, quote, any business that donates to Trump is complicit and endorses the white supremacy he espoused in Charlottesville with his send her back chance.
	And by laughing at shouts that Hispanic immigrants should be shot, donors' names are on FEC reports.
	They are newsworthy.
	So this is where we're going.
	Anybody who donates to any political cause is now responsible for people who are evil, who take political messages and use them as impetus to go commit a shooting, even if they say in their manifesto that it's not Trump's fault, right?
	None of that matters.
	Joe Scarborough is now doing the routine that so many members of the left are doing, lumping everybody together.
	If you support Trump, you support shootings of people in El Paso.
	Scarborough then continued, Now listen, I personally, I like Joe Scarborough.
	I think Joe Scarborough is a nice dude.
	I think that Joe Scarborough is a smart dude, but this is, this is just egregious.
	It's egregious!
	And it necessitates me bringing up the fact that Joe Scarborough really pushed President Trump extraordinarily hard in 2016, early in the primaries, was sitting there laughing with him, was in his campaign suite when the primary results were rolling in from Iowa.
	Joe Scarborough told Hugh Hewitt in January 2016 he would consider being on Trump's ticket as his running mate.
	I mean, come on!
	So Scarborough says if your business funds Trump's campaign, you're supporting white supremacy full stop, look at his rallies, listen to the chants of send her back, here are the calls of shoot them, your money funds that, your business supports that, you are complicit.
	Hey by the way, Trump never said shoot them, that was a member of the audience, and he responded jokingly because he always plays to the crowd.
	Does anyone seriously believe that Trump wants people shot at a Walmart in El Paso?
	Like is there one honest person in America who believes that that is the case?
	The answer is obviously no.
	The answer is obviously no, but this is the narrative and the narrative must be pushed.
	And it's being pushed by folks like Reza Aslan, who came out yesterday and suggested that I, I who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in self-defense because white supremacists would like to kill me, that I am a white supremacist.
	And by the way, not just Ben Shapiro, all of you are white supremacists because if in any way you have ever supported anything Trump did, you're a white supremacist too.
	So Reza Aslan, pushing forward that narrative, he tweeted out, Let me just clear this up.
	Yes, all Trump supporters are culpable.
	If you support a racist, you are a racist.
	whether I believe that all Trump supporters are culpable in the white nationalist terrorism he's inspired.
	Let me just clear this up.
	Yes, all Trump supporters are culpable.
	If you support a racist, you are a racist.
	End.
	This is the point of the left.
	The point of the left is that everybody on the right, not just Trump, this isn't about curbing Trump's bad rhetoric.
	If it were about curbing Trump's bad rhetoric, they would have been criticizing it back in 2015-2016 instead of giving him free airtime.
	If this were about curbing Trump's bad rhetoric, they would be celebrating the fact that this week Trump has said the right stuff.
	But they're not.
	They're upset that Trump is saying the right things this week.
	And the reason they are upset is because it undermines the narrative they are trying to draw, which is that everybody on the right is complicit in a terror attack, a white supremacist terror attack on Latinos.
	That is the narrative and they are going to push it.
	Elizabeth Warren does the same thing.
	She says Trump and the Republicans are enabling white supremacy.
	Here she was yesterday talking to Don Lemon.
	Okay, so it's everybody's fault.
	Everybody's fault.
	feel like they are now empowered.
	They are protected.
	They celebrate this president.
	This has turned America in a terrible direction.
	And Donald Trump keeps it going.
	And let's be clear, a Republican Congress, Republican leadership in Washington, they got nothing to say about it.
	And that means they just help strengthen it.
	Okay, so it's everybody's fault.
	Everybody's fault.
	Okay, again, this is the transitive property.
	Trump responsible for shooting.
	Not true.
	Everybody who supports Trump responsible for shooting?
	Not true.
	Everybody who is conservative supports those people who support Trump who is responsible for the shooting?
	Not true.
	Elizabeth Warren then tweeted out, Donald Trump is enabling white supremacy and Republicans are enabling him.
	And when Congress and the American people have tried to fight the gun violence epidemic, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has put the NRA first.
	Okay, again, this is one of the more egregious gun control lies on the left, is that people on the right support the Second Amendment because of the NRA.
	That the NRA doesn't exist because people support the Second Amendment.
	It's idiotic.
	I mean, fully idiotic.
	It is the same thing as saying that union leaders, that union power is the reason that Democrats support unions, not that unions support Democrats because Democrats are pro-union.
	It's just, it's ridiculous.
	It's silly, it's ridiculous, it's dumb, obviously.
	She says, if we want action, we need to take back the Senate and end the filibuster, etc, etc.
	OK, so as I have said, this is dangerous for a couple of reasons.
	It's deeply dangerous.
	It is dangerous, number one, because now you have members of Congress, members of the left openly espousing, openly pushing the idea that if you donate to a political cause they don't like, you're complicit in murder.
	And then they are naming your name and putting your face out there and suggesting that people show up at your house, basically.
	That is what is going on.
	Your business be ruined because you support Trump.
	You want to make sure we can't live in the same country together?
	Make sure that anyone who disagrees with you gets boycotted, their house protested, their family threatened.
	Because that's what will happen.
	That's what has happened.
	We can stop pretending now that this is not what the left is after because there are too many members of the left who are after this.
	Now again, I'm going to distinguish.
	I think there are a lot of liberals who are not in favor of this.
	But this would be a good time for them to make that clear.
	Joaquin Castro, by the way, has no good answers for why he just did what he did.
	MSNBC asked him a question about it.
	He collapsed in on himself.
	Well, the first thing is that I don't want anybody harassed or targeted.
	But they will be because you put their names in public.
	Look, that was not my intention.
	But that's what will happen.
	These things are public.
	But if you agree that rhetoric can lead to incitement, even if it just triggers one person to do something terrible, does it give you any pause about putting these people's names out in public?
	Well, Willie, they're already public.
	They're already out there.
	There are 11 retirees and one homemaker who are not public.
	And this was already circulating.
	I shared it, so I didn't create the graphic.
	No, he actually put out the graphic himself from his Twitter account.
	It was not a retweet.
	So he has no good answers for this.
	I mean, good for... Who's that asking the question over on MSNBC?
	I'm sorry.
	Willie Geist.
	So good for Willie Geist for actually asking a correct question on MSNBC.
	I know that's nearly forbidden at MSNBC now.
	So good for Willie Geist.
	So why is this so damaging?
	This is so damaging because right now there is some movement toward what could be some good law.
	Hey, what that law is a red flag law.
	So President Trump mentioned this the other day.
	These are gun violence restraining orders.
	Now, there's been a divide that has opened up in the pro-Second Amendment community about red flag laws.
	The case for red flag laws is that if there's somebody in your immediate community, somebody that you know, close family member who is acting dangerous, who's a threat, that you should be able to go to a judge and temporarily, with a showing of evidence, have their ability to own a gun or carry a gun removed from them, and that should sunset, and then you should have to show new evidence that the person shouldn't have their Second Amendment rights restored.
	And in emergency cases, you can do this, you can have these rights basically revoked for 72 hours if it looks like something violent is going to happen in the immediate future.
	That is the basic proposal that is on the table with regard to the red flag laws.
	I want to talk about what the actual red flag laws say and what the objections to the red flag laws is and how the left is actually underscoring that objection in just one second.
	First, these days a lot of workplaces, they offer employees some pretty nice perks.
	Like here at the Daily Wire offices, we have a nice kitchen.
	It's fully stocked.
	We also allow our employees to go home at night sometimes.
	That's a really nice perk.
	Sometimes.
	We don't want them to really feel their oats.
	We don't want them to be too comfortable.
	So most of the time, we force them to work overnight in what we like to call the chamber.
	But aside from that, it's a pretty great place to work.
	But perks at the office, they're not the same as perks at home or the perks that you buy for yourself.
	One of the perks that you may get at the office is life insurance, but you don't want to rely on that workplace insurance.
	This is where Policy Genius comes in.
	Policy Genius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online.
	In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find the right amount of coverage at the best possible price.
	If you have workplace life insurance, the Policy Genius team can review that policy, let you know what additional coverage you might need.
	So remember, workplace life insurance policies, they're like workplace snacks.
	They're better than nothing, but not quite enough.
	Head on over to PolicyGenius.com today.
	Find out how to supplement your workplace life insurance and better protect your family.
	PolicyGenius.
	It's like a buffet made of life insurance.
	Mmm, delicious.
	Go check them out.
	Policygenius.com.
	Meanwhile, we would like for you to go subscribe over at Daily Wire as we have been exploring all day and for the last several years, there are too many members of the left who want to deprive you of your access to shows like this one, attack our advertisers, attack the platforms upon which we appear, even though we are bringing you rational content.
	Okay, this is their goal.
	You can help prevent that by subscribing over at Daily Wire.
	When you do, you get the very best in beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
	Notice, it doesn't say liberal tears.
	It says leftist.
	That was a personal insistence by me.
	I said there's a difference between leftists and liberals.
	I'm happy to drink leftist tears since they are so happy to help ruin the country.
	Okay, we'll get to more of that in a second.
	Also, time is quickly running out to purchase tickets to our backstage live show.
	It's a special one-night-only event, August 21st at the beautiful Terrace Theater in Long Beach, California.
	I will be there.
	DailyWire God King Jeremy Boren will be there.
	Andrew Clavin will be there.
	Michael Moles will be there, if that's something that you want.
	He'll be there like gonorrhea.
	We'll be talking politics, pop culture, and answering your questions from the audience.
	Tickets are on sale right now at dailywire.com backstage.
	Including our limited VIP packages that guarantee premium seating, photos, meet and greets with each of us, a gift from me.
	I've been shopping over for weeks.
	It really is nice.
	And more.
	They are selling so fast, these tickets.
	So head on over to dailywire.com slash backstage.
	Reserve yours today.
	We're almost out of tickets.
	I know that Daily Caller was trying to help us push ticket sales by pointing out the prices.
	They really are quite good for a general admission ticket.
	And the VIP tickets, they're expensive.
	That's because you get to hang out with all of us.
	So I will see you there.
	Dailywire.com slash backstage.
	Go check us out over at Daily Wire and please subscribe.
	We always appreciate it.
	We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So as I say, the right wing proposal, the conservative proposal that's being put forward by a lot of Republicans is a red flag bill.
	The red flag bill would be the most significant gun control legislation enacted in 20 years, according to the New York Times.
	What exactly would it do?
	Well, effectively, what they would do is allow people to go to a judge and request that gun rights be revoked for people who they can show evidence are dangerous.
	In Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine was shouted down on Sunday by mourners in Dayton demanding that he do something on Tuesday.
	He urged fellow Republicans in the state legislature to pass measures establishing red flag powers and expanding background checks.
	Representative Michael Turner went further, he said, Now, again, I think that those gun control measures, the assault, rifle, ban, all that kind of stuff, that's dumb, it's bad policy, it's not going to accomplish the goal that it seeks, and it's going to invade the rights of millions of Americans.
	But, red flag bills are a little bit different.
	So, red flag bills, as I say, are designed to prevent people who are dangerous from having guns.
	It's not restricting the type of gun.
	Universal background checks have been a failure.
	And then we have them in California, they're a failure.
	They are a failure generally simply because there are a lot of people with no criminal history who are able to purchase a gun legally.
	But more than that, the red flag stuff is more about trying to tailor a solution to the problem.
	It's trying to find the ability to look at people who are dangerous on incipient level and then target them to take away their Second Amendment rights, at least temporarily.
	The laws authorize courts to issue orders allowing police to temporarily confiscate firearms for a person deemed by a judge as posing a risk of violence.
	Often requests for the orders come from relatives and friends concerned about a gun owner who expresses suicidal thoughts or threatens to harm others.
	The NRA has been fighting extreme risk protection orders in the states for years.
	That is because they are worried about due process protections.
	An NRA spokesperson, Katherine Mortenson, said that such orders, quote, at a minimum, must include strong due process protections, require treatment, and include penalties against those who make frivolous claims.
	All of which seems reasonable to me.
	If you make a frivolous claim to try and deprive somebody of their Second Amendment rights, then there should be blowback upon you.
	There's a push for more of the background check expansion.
	That would be the Manchin-Toomey bill, for example.
	Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat, said the idea of a red flag law is okay, but it doesn't substitute for a background check bill.
	Actually, it's much more effective than a background check bill.
	The evidence for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.
	One of the reasons is because mass shootings are statistically rare.
	And while they are far too common in the headlines, statistically speaking, compared to the vast bulk of shootings, they are very rare statistically.
	And so the sample size is just not enough to be able to really dedicate studies on trends to it.
	Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry at Duke, says that the laws could make a difference, even if they didn't prevent mass shootings.
	That's always code for we don't know.
	Now, again, I've been supportive of red flag laws, but the counter argument that is being put forth by the NRA and friends of mine like Dana Lash is that you cannot trust people to be able to take away other people's gun rights because there are too many people who are going to use that in bad faith.
	And there are too many judges who are willing to impose such orders in bad faith, meaning And meaning that you'll have somebody like David Frum.
	David Frum is a columnist over at The Atlantic, and David Frum is very, very dovish on gun rights, to say it mildly.
	So he put out a picture this morning on Twitter, and it's just a picture of like a 10-year-old holding a gun, and he tweeted out, Well, no, that's not a red flag.
	What is your proof that the person is actually a danger to himself or others?
	There are lots of 10-year-olds who are trained to use guns, particularly in the middle of the country.
	So, no, that is not a red flag.
	So a lot of folks on the right are saying, I don't want to give anybody the ability to take away my gun because I don't trust these people to act in good faith.
	This is why I say that when the left targets everybody on the right as a potential shooter or a supporter of a shooter, they're undermining the ability to actually pass laws that could actually do something about this stuff.
	So normally, we should all be able to agree on a red flag law.
	And we should be able to agree.
	You know, I've got a brother, and my brother is a paranoid schizophrenic, and he's been acting out violently against members of his family.
	I need to go to a judge and prevent him from buying a gun.
	He's been suggesting he wants to buy a gun.
	I need to go to a judge and issue a temporary restraining order.
	I think we can all agree that that would be a proper measure to take.
	That would be a smart thing to do.
	But the problem is this.
	What if I believe, as somebody on the right, that my next door neighbor, who's a Bernie Sanders supporter, and who hates me, and who thinks that President Trump is a white supremacist who wants Latinos shot at an El Paso Walmart, He lives next door to me.
	I've got a Trump sign on my lawn, and he thinks that that Trump sign is innately violent and terrible, and so he just puts together some sort of claim, goes to a judge, and next thing I know, the police are hauling my guns out of my house.
	There are a lot of people on the right who are worried about this, and I think that that worry is not an unreasonable one, given the way that the left is treating the right right now, given the way that Democrats are treating anyone who says they will vote for Trump, given the way they are lumping in everybody who is on the right with white supremacists.
	I think that it undermines the capacity to form legislation.
	You know, one of the things that you find, especially, it works in the context of guns too.
	When there are high levels of social capital.
	Social capital is the amount of trust that we have in one another.
	When there are high levels of social capital in a community, pretty much any policy works.
	Most policies work.
	Even redistributionist policies tend to work when there's high social capital, at least for a period of time before you have a free rider problem.
	This is what's happened in Norway, for example.
	So people like to talk about Sweden and Norway.
	Those are countries that by studies have very high levels of social trust and social capital.
	Socialism tends to undermine that because you end up with a lot of free riders, but temporarily, because people trust each other, they don't seem to mind redistributionism as much.
	You don't inside your church, right?
	Inside your church or inside your synagogue.
	There's a fair bit of redistributionism.
	It's voluntary, but it's socially...
	Accepted and socially promoted.
	And you like that because there's high levels of social capital.
	The same thing holds true when it comes to gun violence more generally.
	In areas of the United States with high levels of trust in your neighbor, gun violence is not a problem, even if everybody owns a gun.
	And this is true in New Hampshire, for example, or Vermont.
	In areas where there is very little social capital, meaning you can't trust your neighbor, where crime rates are extraordinarily high, where there are lack of masculine influences, for example, where police presence is not high enough and law enforcement presence isn't high enough, Then, presence of guns will lead to additional violence, or at least contribute to problems of additional violence, and this is what you see in, for example, Chicago every weekend.
	Social capital lies at the root of the ability to effectually provide legislation that works.
	As we continue to undermine the social capital and imply that people who live next door to us are nascent shooters and nascent white supremacists, and everyone who disagrees with you is a crazy person about to shoot up a Walmart, Why would any of those people then say, OK, I'm going to grant government the power to come and take away my guns at your word?
	So as I say, I agree on a general level with red flag laws, I do.
	But I certainly hear the critique in a time when Joaquin Castro is suggesting that anyone who donated to Trump needs to be targeted.
	And in time when I am paying out of my pocket for personal security because I'm being targeted by both white supremacists and Antifa and then being called by mainstream figures on the left, a white supremacist.
	In that time, listen, I'm not too sanguine about handing more power to government at the word of these people either, at the word of these jokers.
	It undermines the ability to actually make good legislation.
	And you know what else undermines the ability to make good legislation?
	The fact that there is distrust of the left and where they want to stop here.
	Because as it turns out, the left's attempts to cut down on the Second Amendment are matched only by their attempts to cut down on the First Amendment.
	So when you listen to the Democrats talk about the Second Amendment, they do so with the sort of snide nastiness that they usually reserve for actual evils.
	So you end up with Kamala Harris declaring herself dictator.
	So Kamala Harris is proposing gun control.
	Her gun control is basically that she is going to do whatever she wants.
	Ultimate power!
	And then the lightning shoots out of her fingers.
	Kamala Harris tweeted out, as president, I will take executive action to revoke the licenses of gun manufacturers and dealers that break the law.
	Maybe she should start, by the way, with all of the dealers that Eric Holder allowed to involve themselves in straw purchases in Fast and Furious.
	She says, require anyone who sells more than five guns a year to run a background check on all gun sales and ban the importation of AR-15 style assault weapons.
	Okay, so I'm glad that she is just going to declare this stuff as president.
	Because, as we all know, the president is a dictator.
	I'm not fearful at all that she's coming for my guns.
	Because she just declared herself dictator as soon as she's elected.
	That's exciting stuff.
	And yet Elizabeth Warren has followed suit.
	She also tweeted out she wanted to take executive action.
	She said, We need a president willing to take executive action herself.
	I'll do everything I can, and I'll lead the fight for gun legislation from the White House.
	Well, you can lead that fight as much as you want.
	It's the first part I'm worried about, which is you just taking unilateral executive action.
	This goes to a deeper problem right now in American politics.
	As the social capital decays, we don't trust the legislature, which is elected every two years.
	And which creates gridlock.
	Instead, we elect a big man or a big woman and they're supposed to do all the things we want and they're supposed to take revenge against our political enemies.
	We're moving in some really dangerous directions in this country.
	Really, really dangerous directions.
	So as I say, it's not just crackdowns on the Second Amendment that folks on the right are worried about.
	It should be crackdowns on the First Amendment.
	There's a piece in the New York Times today, a news piece by Melissa Eddy and Aurelien Breeden, saying the El Paso shooting revived the free speech debate.
	Europe has limits.
	So now you have the New York Times running full pieces on why we should limit the First Amendment, why we should limit freedom of speech.
	No, I've said before, I again, I don't know how many times I have to say this, considering that I've been the subject of white supremacist death threats, probably more than most people, more than most people, more than nearly anyone in the United States.
	OK, given the fact that, again, I have personal security 24-7 around the clock, my family has security.
	Given that fact, I think it is fair to say that I understand the wages of free speech.
	I understand the wages of people saying evil things.
	There are people on the internet right now who are ranting and raving about what a terrible evil person, what a cuck I am for ripping on white supremacy and threatening me.
	This is happening like right at the moment.
	I know because it's there.
	I also have said that free speech shall not be infringed.
	The First Amendment is a very good thing.
	If you want a free country, you have to accept the fact that there are going to be people who misuse their rights.
	Now, when that crosses over into actual threats, into legal incitement, then the police do something about it.
	So, when somebody from Antifa threatens to come to my house, I call the cops.
	And when somebody threatens to come and kill me and my family, I'm gonna call the FBI.
	And there will be an arrest, as there has already been, in at least one case.
	But the fact that the New York Times is now the New York Times.
	Weren't they the people who like the case New York Times versus Sullivan about the broad scope of what is publishable in the United States without liability?
	I thought that that case included the New York Times, like that's why it was in the name New York Times v. Sullivan.
	Well, now the New York Times is openly calling for European style restrictions on the First Amendment.
	In Europe, lots of types of speech are banned.
	You think that the left isn't coming for your free speech?
	The hard left isn't coming for your free speech?
	Think again.
	They already are in Europe.
	They already are in Canada.
	It is only a matter of time until this comes to the United States in full force.
	Not just attempts to curb corporate spending, which is indeed a violation of free speech, but attempts to suggest that hate speech, quote-unquote hate speech, ill-defined should be outlawed.
	That misgendering should be outlawed.
	That if you call a biological man a man, it should be outlawed.
	You already see a lot of corporations doing the dirty work of these activists, these anti-free speech activists, by banning speech that they don't like.
	Not illegal speech, just speech that they don't like.
	They're private corporations, they can do what they want, but it contributes to a feeling that free speech Is really not in its healthiest moment in the country, for damn sure.
	In any case, the New York Times reports, The massacre of 22 people in El Paso, an attack announced in a hate-filled manifesto about an immigrant invasion, has revived debate about the limits of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
	But in Europe, where history has proved that domestic threats can be as devastating to democracy as those from abroad, freedom of speech, while a constitutional right, comes with certain caveats, where it's not going to be a threat.
	Restricted in scope and linked to specific threats, these limitations are based on the premise that protecting certain ideals, such as the public good or human dignity, Can justify curbing what individuals are allowed to say.
	You know how dangerous this is?
	Way more dangerous to the future of the country than white supremacists ranting online.
	It is significantly more dangerous to the future of the country if we start curbing free speech on a broad level on the basis of quote public good or human dignity.
	Then it is to have people ranting on 4chan.
	And again, the people ranting on 4chan should be monitored by the FBI.
	They should be arrested if they are getting violent.
	Obviously, because that is a violation of free speech.
	But in the long run, what is going to actually collapse the democracy in the United States, collapse the small r-republic of the United States, is not going to be evil people who commit isolated acts of violence.
	What is going to take down the United States is a broad governmental level attempt to shut down speech that is considered unpalatable.
	I mean, the founders thought this.
	Most people in the United States still think this.
	And that is not downplaying the threat of white supremacy in the slightest.
	It is a threat.
	It is a dangerous, vile threat.
	And we should be using whatever legal methods are at our disposal in order to fight it.
	We should be using whatever social methods are at our disposal in order to fight it.
	But calling for European-style crackdowns in favor of public good or human dignity?
	Can you imagine anything vaguer than that?
	It is supremely vague.
	Now, the Europeans in the aftermath of World War II instituted all sorts of curbs on the sort of speech that could be used because they were afraid that that speech could be used and lead to the rise of Nazism.
	And in order to protect democracy, you had to engage in a sort of repressive tolerance where everybody who didn't agree with you, at least on a broad level, was shut down.
	You understand it more in the European context.
	But the fact, again, remains that in the United States, in the United States, There is no white supremacist takeover of the national government that is even close to happening or remotely possible happening.
	It's not happening.
	And so if the idea is we have to curb free speech because of 8chan, not on board with that.
	And I think a lot of people in the United States are quite fearful that the same left that labels everyone on the right a member of the 8chan community, that they are happy to use vague terms like public good or human dignity to simply shut down speech they don't like.
	That is a justified fear.
	And it prevents actual solutions.
	There's so much that we can all agree on.
	There's so much we can all agree on.
	But I can't agree when I think that the ulterior motive of people on the left is to eventually shut down any ability to say what I think.
	Or my ability to own weaponry.
	Not gonna get on board with people who I think are using this as a first step to do this.
	So, show me that you're not.
	I think there are a lot of people who are not using this as a first step toward an ultimate goal of curbing free speech or curbing Second Amendment rights.
	But then you should be actively fighting the people who obviously are.
	The New York Times runs this- I mean, it's unbelievable.
	Kevin Williamson has a book out about this.
	About the attempt by so many people, particularly on the left these days, to conflate language I don't like with incitement.
	The AOC and the squad, they do it all the time.
	The same squad members like Rashida Tlaib celebrating Joaquin Castro targeting political opponents by name.
	She is the same person who will say that it is incitement if I say that Ilhan Omar is anti-Semitic.
	And then presumably should pursue legislation along those lines.
	The New York Times says free speech is constitutionally enshrined in both Germany and France as it is in the United States.
	But there's an important difference.
	Emmanuel Pierrot, a French lawyer who specializes in publishing and free speech says, the big nuance between the First Amendment and the European texts is that the European texts allow for possible limitations on speech.
	Yes, that is supremely, supremely dangerous in the American context.
	Trying to conflate violence and speech is one of the habits of the left right now, and it is going to undermine any possibility of living in a republic with one another.
	You're undermining the fundamental rights upon which the polity was based.
	You can't do that without damaging the polity itself.
	Okay, time for a thing I like.
	And then we'll get to a thing that I hate.
	So, speaking of social fabric and community, there is a great clip that is going around, has probably 30 million views at this point, of a 94-year-old man appearing in traffic court about a school zone violation.
	And the judge, who himself has to be in his 60s, and it's just, it's pretty fantastic because it's a reminder that, at root in the United States, the vast majority of us really nearly everyone is trying to be a good person and do the right things and beneath all of our disagreements there should be a common humanity in a liberal republic
	and here's this clip you are charged with a school zone violation which means that you were exceeding the speed limit in a school zone i don't drive that fast judge i'm I'm 96 years old, and I drive slowly, and I only drive when I have to.
	I was going to the blood work for my boy.
	He's handicapped.
	You were taking your son to the doctor's office?
	Yeah.
	I take him for blood work every two weeks, because he's got cancer.
	You are a good man.
	You are a good man.
	You really are what America is all about.
	Here you are in your 90s and you're still taking care of your family.
	That's just a wonderful thing for you.
	Listen sir, I wish you all the best.
	I wish the best for your son and I wish you good health and your case is dismissed.
	Good luck to you and God bless you.
	Thank you.
	I mean, that's nice.
	I mean, that's nice.
	Isn't that nice?
	Nice.
	It's a foreign quality these days.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	So according to a new poll, a UK-wide survey, this is from the United Kingdom obviously, reveals the extent to which the younger generation feel disillusioned, is according to the UK Sun, with the majority, 89% of 16 to 29 year olds claiming that their life lacks purpose or meaning.
	Well maybe that is because of a philosophy that suggests that life lacks purpose or meaning.
	It turns out human beings really suck at creating their own purpose and their own meaning, and they will find Tribalism they will find they will find distraction they'll find hedonism that human beings are Born to find meaning and if you don't have social institutions that provide that meaning social institutions that provide meaning in acting in freedom and responsibility social institutions that promote freedom and Liberty, along with duty.
	If you don't have those social institutions, people lack purpose.
	And that lack of purpose has serious consequences.
	It leads to depression, it leads to suicide, it leads to drug use.
	There are actual consequences to believing that there is no purpose in life.
	And unfortunately, secularism has a tough time filling that gap.
	Again, I'm very much in favor of secularism's take on the separation between church and state and government, particularly because I don't think that the state should crack down on church.
	That's really why separation of church and state was created in the first place, so that you didn't have one sect cracking down on other sects.
	With that said, the fundamental attempt to undermine social institutions in the West has led to a meaninglessness, a crisis of meaninglessness that I write about in my book, The Right Side of History.
	It's not just a pitch for the book, but my book really does talk about this at length.
	It's worth reading because it talks about where we used to find purpose and meaning on a community level and on an individual level.
	Okay, here is a thing that I both hate and like.
	Because I think this also goes to the moral quandary that the West is experiencing and its inability to recognize the difference between good and evil.
	The Times of Israel has a report today.
	Interior Minister Aryeh Derry on Tuesday awarded Israeli residency to a Palestinian man who saved the children of a West Bank rabbi in the aftermath of a deadly terror attack in which the father was killed.
	Rabbi Mickey Mark was murdered in a July 1, 2016 shooting.
	His wife Hava was seriously injured.
	Two of their teenage children were also hurt.
	The Palestinian rescuer and his wife, who are residents of Hebron, the Hebron area, helped the surviving members of the Mark family escape their overturned vehicle and administered first aid until first responders arrived at the scene.
	The Palestinian man, who has not been named, received a temporary visa to live and work in Israel after receiving death threats in his hometown near the West Bank city of Hebron.
	The visa was not renewed in August 2018.
	He's been homeless, living in limbo in Israel.
	His plight was revealed recently in a Channel 12 report, and following a campaign by several Israelis, including settler leaders, he was awarded Israeli residency on Tuesday, along with his wife and son.
	Let me just point out that this guy and his wife helped save the family of a Jew during a terror attack and he was met for that trouble with death threats in the West Bank.
	He was for saving Jews.
	Okay, if that doesn't say something about the moral problem between Israel and the Palestinians, I don't know what does.
	You save a Jew in the Palestinian areas and you have to flee to Israel for that crime.
	Yes, I'm sure that moral equivalency is probably the answer here.
	All right, we will 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.

▲