Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 15, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:15

Solve Your Own Problems. The Government Won't. | Ep. 840

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, yesterday I trended on Twitter.
	Thanks for the signal boost.
	As always, media matters, the economy continues to teeter, and another mass shooting takes place in Philadelphia.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	I have a lot to get to today.
	We're gonna go through some basic economics and also some basic job advice today because apparently people don't understand English.
	They don't understand economic arguments.
	They would much prefer to attribute beliefs to me that I don't actually hold, but the entire show won't be about me.
	We'll also get to a lot of the other stuff that's in the news, including Jeffrey Epstein apparently having a broken bone in his neck that suggests strangulation.
	So, good times out there.
	We'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, geopolitical tensions are rising.
	You can just read the news or listen to the show.
	The yields on bonds are now inverted, and this is giving a lot of people pause about the future of the American economy and the global economy.
	And people are rushing to gold.
	And there's a reason they're rushing to gold.
	The gold prices are rising radically.
	The reason is because when there are turbulent economic times, people look to precious metals as a hedge against inflation and uncertainty.
	That is a smart thing to do.
	If you're interested in getting some of that hedge in your portfolio, then you should really be looking at my friends at Birchgold.
	I know the folks at Birchgold.
	I trust the people at Birchgold.
	They're really good folks.
	They've been on my show before.
	You can hedge against inflation and hedge against uncertainty and instability with precious metals.
	My savings plan is diversified and yours should be as well.
	If you diversified, you wouldn't be quite so scared of what's going on in the stock market these days.
	800 point drop yesterday.
	The company I trust with precious metal purchases, Birch Gold Group.
	Contact Birch Gold Group.
	Get a free information kit on physical precious metals.
	See if diversifying into gold and silver makes sense for you.
	Their comprehensive 16-page kit reveals how gold and silver can protect your savings, how you can legally move that IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds and into precious metals, if that's something you want to do.
	To get your no-cost, no-obligation kit, text BEN to 474747.
	Again, text my name, BEN, to 474747.
	474747 again text my name Ben to 474747 go check them out right now okay so I'm gonna do something that I rarely do here on the shop I'm going to talk about something that I've said previously on the show.
	The reason that I usually don't do this on the show is because I feel like most of the stuff that I say is fairly self-explanatory.
	Well, yesterday...
	There's a clip from the show, and it went viral, because this is what Media Matters does.
	What they like to do is clip part of a clip, and then put it out there, and then people react on Twitter as they normally do, because as I have said, Twitter is the boo box, right?
	Twitter is the place where someone has sinned, and we throw them inside the boo box.
	They made a boo-boo!
	We throw them inside the boo box, we drop scorpions, and we drop snakes on them.
	Well, yesterday, it was my turn in the boo box, because that's what Twitter is.
	And Twitter is also a place of dunking and being dunked upon.
	And so yesterday was a day of slam dunks.
	Okay, so what generated all of this?
	You may have listened to the show yesterday and thought to yourself, I didn't hear anything particularly controversial.
	What exactly was the big controversy about?
	Well, the big controversy was about something that I had to say about Kamala Harris.
	So we were talking yesterday about bad economic takes, and we were talking about the senator from California suggesting that no one in America should have to work two jobs in order to put a roof over their head or to get ahead.
	And I was making a very simple point.
	The simple point was that the government can't fix that.
	That is not a government problem.
	That's a you problem.
	Now, when I say a you problem, I'm using you problem the way normal people use you problem.
	Not it's a problem with you, if you have to hold two jobs to put a roof over your head, but that it's a problem you have to solve, right?
	It is a problem within your domain.
	It is not a government problem.
	It is a you problem.
	In fact, I'm very much in favor of people working multiple jobs.
	I've worked multiple jobs every day since I graduated law school in 2007.
	I have worked multiple jobs.
	As of three years ago, I was actually working five simultaneous jobs.
	I kid you not.
	I was an editor-at-large over at Breitbart.
	I was the editor of Daily Wire.
	I was doing my podcast.
	I was doing two radio shows, a morning radio show and an afternoon radio show.
	So I was working a bunch of jobs at one time.
	In fact, I think that that's good.
	I think that that is a sign of ambition, that you're working multiple jobs in order to get ahead.
	The point that I was making on the show is that you live in a free country.
	It's your choice.
	And if you don't want to work multiple jobs, you don't have to.
	Now, there are consequences to that, of course.
	If you have to work two jobs to put a roof over your head, and then you don't work one of those jobs, you're going to have to lower your costs, right?
	You have a few choices if you don't want to work two jobs.
	One is, you could simply not take the jobs that pay you less, believing that you're going to get a job somewhere else that will pay you more.
	Maybe that works out.
	Maybe that doesn't.
	Your decision.
	Hey, possibility number two, you lower your costs and you take one job.
	Many people do this.
	Possibility number three, you work two jobs in order to put that roof over your head in order to get ahead.
	In any case, these are your options and these are all you problems, right?
	This is the way that you solve your own life and you make your own life better.
	What they are not is what Kamala Harris suggests and what all Democrats apparently suggest, which is the fourth off-the-board option.
	I'm going to go to the federal government and force them to put a gun to the head of potential employers and pay me what I want to be paid.
	And that is not an option, because that is tyranny.
	And when Kamala Harris and all the other politicians tell you that they are going to fix a you problem, that they are going to fix a problem that you have to solve yourself, A problem that requires a used solution when politicians tell you they're going to fix that by somehow restructuring the economy so you can work that $15 an hour job at McDonald's and it will become a $35 an hour job magically so you can put that roof over your head that you want.
	They are lying to you.
	It's not going to happen.
	That's not how economic works.
	There's not a bunch of rich people sitting around who have always been rich and who are seeking to put their boot on the throat of poor people in order to pay them less.
	That is just nonsense.
	The way people get ahead in the United States is they work hard.
	Yes, they work multiple jobs.
	Sometimes they feel they need to work multiple jobs.
	Sometimes they do have to work multiple jobs, but not because they are being forced by an outside actor to do that, Because these are individual choices we make in a free country where we have free consensual exchange of goods and services and pay.
	And people were coming back at me yesterday after I said all this, and they were saying something like, well, you know, what about bad working conditions?
	I'm not against private sector unions!
	If you get together with all of the potential employees, and you say, we're not going to work there, good for you!
	You should!
	Absolutely!
	You should strike so that you don't have to work in asbestos-laden conditions.
	Of course you should strike so you don't have to work in coal dust without any sort of protections.
	But if the idea is that government has to come in and regulate all of this and change the consensual relationships between a person who wants to work and a person who wants to pay them for that work, the answer is no.
	The answer is no.
	We are a consent-based free market system and we should remain so.
	Okay, so that is what I was trying to say yesterday.
	Here's what I actually said, and then we will see how people on the left decided to take this as I'm crapping all over poor people or something, which is absurd.
	Kamala Harris is getting desperate at this point, and she continues to trot out promises that she can't keep.
	She says nobody should have to work more than one job in the United States.
	Nobody should have to work more than one.
	Okay, sure.
	You know, I find it very interesting, something about this administration and this president.
	You know, he's going around crowing about how this economy is doing so well, right?
	Oh, the economy is great, he says, right?
	And they refer to the unemployment numbers.
	Well, yeah, I'm traveling our country.
	Let me tell you something.
	Yeah, people are working.
	They're working two and three jobs.
	And in our America, we must agree nobody should have to work more than one job to have a roof over their head and food on the table.
	Okay, well, the fact is that if you had to work more than one job to have a roof over your head or food on the table, you probably shouldn't have taken the job that's not paying you enough.
	That'd be a you problem.
	Also, it is not true.
	So, they took that clip without the Harris quote.
	So it is very obvious that I'm responding directly to Kamala Harris' contention that we all must agree, meaning the government, must agree, That you should only have to work one job to put a roof over your head.
	And I'm saying, no, no, no.
	That's not a government problem.
	That's a you problem.
	Meaning it's a decision that you are going to have to make about your own life.
	And by the way, this is a message that is going to allow people to make free decisions.
	That is going to add to income mobility.
	It's a decision that to take your own life under your own control.
	Kamala Harris and politicians lie to you.
	They do it right, left, and center.
	They tell you that if you are not living the economic life of your dreams, that they are going to fix this for you.
	That they're going to make it all better for you.
	And they're going to do so with the power of government.
	They are lying to you to get you to give them money and power.
	They are not going to fix your problems.
	You are going to fix your problems.
	You're going to be the one who makes free decisions to make your life better.
	You're going to cut costs.
	You're going to make sure that you're not spending too much.
	You're going to take that extra job on the side.
	Honestly, I'm insulted by how many people in the media on the left decided to take that last clip and then suggest that I am looking down on people who work more than two jobs as though those people can simply quit and get one job.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	What I'm saying is that if you chose to take two jobs, that's a you decision.
	That's a you decision.
	And of course it's a you decision.
	It should be a you decision.
	In fact, I'm very much in favor of people taking more than one job if it gets them ahead.
	My dad, when he was first married to my mom, would work nightclubs at night.
	He's a pianist.
	He would work nightclubs at night, and then he would stuff newspapers in the morning, and then he would deliver food during the day.
	He'd work three jobs.
	Again, I've worked multiple jobs literally my entire career.
	I'm very much in favor of that, but it's my decision to do that.
	And that is how people get ahead.
	We should be inspired by people who are working multiple jobs.
	Because it's their decision.
	We shouldn't treat them as though they are victims of society because they're working multiple jobs.
	We should treat them as free actors in a free economy who are making free decisions to make their life better, freely.
	That's how we should be treating people.
	And that's what I was objecting to.
	But apparently, that's apparently scorn for people who are poor.
	And so I tweeted out all of this yesterday.
	I put out a Twitter thread explaining exactly what Media Matters had done.
	They cut off the part with Kamala Harris so that it sounds like I'm just saying, out of nowhere, that you should be able to quit your two jobs and get one job, and obviously that opportunity is available to everyone or something like that.
	That is not what I was saying, and if that's what you heard, then I apologize if that's what you heard, but that's certainly not what I was saying.
	In any case, I tweeted out what I meant.
	I said, the point I'm making, of course, is that you cannot dictate that a job pay you what you wish it paid you.
	That is obvious, and why it is foolishness for politicians to claim that the economy can be structured to force your desired level of pay from a job you chose to take.
	Now, people are very angry at this, because they do want the utopian solution, which is that government comes in and restructures the economy along Kamala Harris's desired lines.
	And so the answer to the problem of taking a job that you feel underpays you is to A, not take the job as I suggest here, or B, not live beyond your means.
	Those would be the two decisions.
	Or, take that job, and then you don't get to whine about it.
	You don't.
	Okay, if you freely take a job, and then you take the pay that comes up, like, they made clear what they were paying you the day you walked in.
	This has been true for every job I ever held.
	And yes, I have taken significant pay cuts in order to take jobs that I wanted.
	When I first got out of law school, I was working at a law firm, right?
	I'd gone to Harvard Law.
	Everybody works at a law firm afterward.
	I worked there for 10 months, and then I hated it so much that I quit.
	That was a me decision.
	And I chose to take a job that paid me one-third of what I had been making before.
	Again, a me decision.
	Do I then get to whine about the fact that I was being paid one-third of what I was?
	No, it was my decision.
	As I say, this was perfectly clear in context.
	The comment immediately follows a line from Kamala Harris, claiming that no one should have to work two jobs.
	So obviously, this is what I was saying.
	So people decided that they were going to go nuts and take it out of context because this is what they do.
	Naturally, AOC decided to do this.
	So we are now in, what, year two of AOC kind of sniping at people and then refusing to talk to them.
	So there's an open invitation to AOC.
	Anytime she wants to discuss this or any other issue, she can come on the show.
	This is not catcalling, as she put it.
	But she sort of catcalled me yesterday by her own standards.
	So she tweeted out, one of the most manipulative tactics plutocrats use is convincing people that the systemic issues we face are character flaws instead of policy flaws.
	Stop there for one second.
	Plutocrats?
	Like what?
	Rule by the rich?
	Let me explain something.
	I was middle class the vast majority of my life.
	The vast majority of my life.
	I know people like to make up kind of fake histories about where I came from and all of this.
	And the fact is that my father and mother, I was born in a two-bedroom small house in Burbank on Ontario Street.
	Okay, and that small house had one bathroom and six people in it.
	I shared a bedroom with three sisters until I was 11 years old.
	And we were middle, middle class.
	We were certainly not upper class.
	We were certainly not rich.
	And you know what?
	My parents worked their ass off to make it so that our life was better and good for them.
	And they did so by working multiple jobs.
	They did so by making personal decisions.
	And she says, one of the most manipulative tactics plutocrats use.
	So I'm a plutocrat.
	So it's plutocracy if I wish to preserve free exchange between people.
	But it is not hierarchical rule from above if AOC wants to take a gun, run by the government, and put it to the heads of employers.
	So top-down centralized control by people like AOC is not tyranny.
	It's tyranny if I say that there should be free exchange between people in how they choose to do jobs.
	She says that one of the most manipulative tactics plutocrats use is convincing people that the systemic issues we face are character flaws instead of policy flaws.
	Well, no, I'm not saying it's a character flaw to take two jobs, obviously.
	I'm saying, in fact, that very often it's a character benefit.
	It's an attribution of great character.
	What I am saying is that that is a you decision.
	It's a you problem.
	That's what it is.
	He says working people aren't dumb or inferior.
	Obviously, no one is saying they are.
	Except for AOC, who apparently believes they're not capable of negotiating their own salary.
	They're not capable of creating income mobility.
	They're not capable of working two jobs to get ahead.
	Which is nor are they why insulin costs $300 or huge companies pay starvation wages.
	I'm always confused by AOC's bizarre understanding of economics.
	She says corruption is responsible for huge companies paying quote-unquote starvation wages.
	Really, is that corruption or is that people choosing to take a job with Walmart because that is a free exchange?
	You may not like what Walmart pays.
	Good news.
	You don't have to work there.
	Again, that would not be Walmart's problem.
	That'd be a you problem.
	Now, you problem doesn't mean a character flaw.
	In you, it means that you not wanting to work at a place in a free country is something that is your choice.
	When I say you problem, I mean a choice made by you.
	One of the most manipulative tactics used by socialists is suggesting that free decision-making by individuals is actually the result of systemic pressures that cannot be avoided other than by people like AOC running your life.
	The tactic that the left likes to use is there's no income mobility, you can never rise, you're being crammed into this job against your will, that you're a victim of circumstance and therefore give me all the power.
	It's manipulative and it's garbage and it makes people's lives worse.
	It's just, it's gross.
	And we're going to get to more of this in just one second.
	But first, let's talk for a second about one of the ways that you might be thinking about protecting your savings, that you might be thinking about investing, as we enter a turbulent economic period.
	So a lot of people are skeptical of cryptocurrencies.
	And I understand that.
	I mean, cryptocurrencies are new.
	But basically, the concept of a cryptocurrency is simply online gold.
	I mean, basically, what a cryptocurrency is, is it is a limited Currency exchange that cannot be manipulated from the outside by a centralized government so if you are sick of watching central banks manipulate interest rates and quantitative easing and all of this then you might want to take a look at cryptocurrencies because thanks to the technology of blockchain there can't be inflation of these currencies and as you've seen these things actually do have real value some cryptocurrencies have tremendous value well if you're interested
	In protecting yourself against the politics and vicissitudes of central banks and governments, then you should be looking at eToro.
	eToro is smart crypto trading made easy.
	eToro's social trading platform has over 11 million active traders and facilitates over $1 trillion in trading volume per year globally.
	You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.
	They have 15 different coins available.
	They've got low and transparent fees.
	Try before you trade with a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget.
	Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts either.
	I mean, this is all awesome.
	You get to try it out.
	You get to see how the market works before you even put your own money into it.
	And again, they've got the charts and the pricing alerts.
	Sign up today at etoro.com slash Shapiro.
	That's E-T-O-R-O dot com slash Shapiro.
	Etoro.com slash Shapiro.
	Take control of your own financial future and give it a try.
	Give it a whirl.
	Again, sign up at etoro.com slash Shapiro that lets them know that we sent you.
	Okay, so.
	One of the things that socialists and now too many democratic politicians want to do is tell you that problems that only you can solve are solvable by them.
	This is the gig.
	And it's not just politicians on the left.
	We heard this from Donald Trump in 2016, that if you lost your manufacturing job in Ohio, it was the fault of the Chinese and the Mexicans, and all you needed to do was place your trust in Trump, and he would somehow return your job to the dying factory in your town.
	And by and large, this has not happened.
	Because it turns out that when politicians say that decisions freely made among human beings are bad and can be fixed by them, that is a gambit for power and money.
	And that's what Kamala Harris is doing, just as Bernie Sanders does.
	They label a problem that we all experience, or that many of us have experienced, which is economic shortcoming, or economic deprival.
	And then, they use that as an excuse to say that they can restructure the system in a better, more fulfilling way, and that's a lie.
	It's a lie, because the collective intelligence of the American public, and yes, the world public, is greater than any one politician believing they know what you ought to be paid, or what a job ought to pay.
	Do you think that AOC, they're complaining about the price of insulin?
	Well, she's free to start an insulin company and then explain how by eliminating corruption, she has lowered the price of insulin and this has allowed her to create enormous wealth for herself and her employees.
	She can do that anytime she wants.
	In fact, if she provides me with a great business plan, I'm happy to invest.
	But I don't think she has any intent of doing that.
	I think that she's shouting at the moon just as Kamala Harris is shouting at the moon.
	And all that does is train the American people in learned helplessness.
	So there is this theory of psychology called learned helplessness.
	And learned helplessness basically suggests that all animals, including human beings, All human beings and animals that we can learn helplessness that if you teach people that there is no correlation between cause and effect, people stop seeing the correlation and then learn helplessness.
	So this this experimentation was first done by a psychologist named Martin Seligman.
	Martin Seligman did this experiment.
	The experiment went like this.
	He took basically two sets of dogs, one set of dogs.
	He would he would electro shock the set of dogs every time They were, every time they ate a certain food, for example.
	So they would eat a certain food, they would get an electroshock for a certain amount of time.
	And this trained them in aversion, right?
	The dogs would simply stop eating the food so that they would not be electroshocked.
	They were compared with another set of dogs.
	And this set of dogs was not correlated with food.
	They wouldn't put food there.
	So the dogs would simply be shocked seemingly at random times.
	Then what they would do is they would take that second set of dogs, shocked at random times, and they would put the food in front of them, and they would start treating them like the first set of dogs.
	So every time the dogs tried to eat the food, they would electroshock them.
	It turns out the second set of dogs had learned helplessness.
	So they would sit there and whine.
	They wouldn't start avoiding the food.
	They would still go for the food, but then they would sit there and whine when they were shocked, because they were not capable now of learning aversion.
	They were not capable of learning to help themselves.
	Well, learned helplessness is a trait among human beings, too.
	It's highly linked to depression, by the way.
	If you teach children, if you teach teenagers they are not in control of their own life.
	If you teach them that systemic forces out there that we won't define are always going to keep you down and that nefarious corrupt people out there, we won't name them, they're just out there, that they're trying to screw you.
	Eventually, people are not going to take the actions that can actually help them.
	They are not going to learn helpfulness.
	Now, there's another theory of learned helplessness, which is that the natural state of human beings is actually helplessness, and that you have to learn helpfulness.
	You actually have to actively train people in the relationship between cause and effect.
	I tend to believe this theory because I see it in my own kids.
	Kids don't understand cause and effect until you teach it to them, and they would rather whine than learn cause and effect.
	Well, that means that as a society, one of the things we should be teaching is that decisions in your control are the ones that can make your life better.
	You want to better your life?
	Then start looking at what's in your control instead of giving power to politicians like Kamala Harris or AOC to restructure the entire economy along lines that they see fit, and which will not help you in the end.
	Because the fact is, people have been trying to restructure capitalism in the United States for decades.
	And guess what?
	About the same percentage of people in the United States are still under the poverty line after we spent $20 trillion in the war on poverty.
	The great danger to the American public right now is a sense of pervasive helplessness that we are not in control of our own lives.
	And it is a lie.
	We are in control of our own lives.
	Now that doesn't mean that every situation in which we find ourselves is a pleasant one.
	It doesn't mean that we're not going to have to work jobs we don't want to work.
	It doesn't mean that we're not going to have to work hard or cut expenses or make decisions to move.
	It does mean, however, that the decisions within our control are the ones most likely to impact our own lives, and Kamala Harris ain't gonna change that by bitching about people working two jobs.
	Okay, that's not gonna change anything.
	In fact, the only obstacles that need to be removed for people are not the obstacles of other human beings who you should respect as independent human beings negotiating with you.
	No, the other obstacles are people who are getting involved in the process.
	I got an email yesterday from somebody who had seen this clip online, and the email was, they're in Boston, and they were saying, well, you know, my wife and I, we make $170,000 combined per year, and we have three kids, and we live in a house, and they're in daycare, and we're still finding it hard to make ends meet, and we're working multiple jobs.
	My response to that is, number one, good for you.
	Number two, the reason you're finding it hard to make ends meet in Boston is because the tax rates are exorbitant, the regulations are exorbitant, and it's almost impossible to find housing in Boston.
	If you actually want a better world for people making decisions freely of their own accord, Then you need government out of this business, not in this business.
	You don't need Kamala Harris healing things.
	You don't need Kamala Harris ratcheting up the taxes.
	You don't need Kamala Harris putting down markers on how many condos can be built for affordable housing.
	What you need is them out of this.
	You need more free exchange, not less free exchange.
	You want jobs that pay better wages?
	What you need is more competition in the employment market.
	You need to make it easier to start a business.
	You need to make it less burdensome to start a business.
	The fact is, by the way, that these minimum wage regulations pushed by Democrats largely help big businesses at the expense of small businesses.
	Small businesses have lower profit margins.
	So the point that I am making here, and have been making consistently on this show forever and throughout my career, is that decisions are in your own hands.
	And if you are given a choice between a problem being a you problem and being a government problem, you should certainly prefer that it be a you problem.
	Because you are the solution.
	Not government.
	Not Kamala Harris.
	You.
	And taking me out of context to pretend that when I say that a you problem is because you're lesser?
	No, it's a me problem too.
	It's an everybody problem.
	We are all individuals making free decisions.
	And those problems are solvable if we put our minds to them, if we make solid decisions.
	It's not up to Kamala Harris to fix everything.
	And by the way, it is not scorn for people to treat them like adults.
	It's scorn for people to treat them like children and suggest that your political solution is going to fix their lives when it ain't.
	Elizabeth Warren ain't coming in on a white horse to fix it.
	Kamala Harris ain't coming in on a white horse to fix it.
	Donald Trump ain't coming in on a white horse to fix it.
	In fact, every time they try to fix it, they make it worse.
	In a second, we're going to talk about the question of whether it is actually true.
	That the American dream is dead.
	So one of the premises that is being used by so many folks on the left in all of this is that you lack individual choice.
	Your individual agency is gone because the American dream is dead, because the plutocracy has taken over.
	I'm going to explain why this is abjectly false in one second.
	First, when the founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas without limitation by their government.
	That's the First Amendment.
	The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
	That would be the Second Amendment.
	And also, in many ways, the most important amendment.
	I love the Second Amendment.
	I particularly love it these days when I receive death threats on a regular basis.
	But everybody who's freedom-loving should love the Second Amendment.
	Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
	Building rifles is no different.
	Started in a garage by a marine veteran more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, builds a professional-grade product which is built to combat standards.
	Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company.
	They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment.
	The people at BCM assume that when a rifle leaves their shop, it will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen.
	A law enforcement officer or a soldier overseas.
	To learn more about BCM, the folks there are fantastic, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	You can discover more about their products, special offers and upcoming news.
	That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	You need more convincing?
	Find out even more about BCM and the awesome people who make their products at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
	Again, that's YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
	Okay, so let's talk for a second about whether it is true That you are not in control of your own life in the United States.
	So this is the contention of people right, left, and center these days, is that basically the American dream is dead, and now government is going to restore the American dream to you with interventionism.
	It's absolute crap.
	Okay, so one of the things that we keep hearing, for example, is that income mobility is declining radically in the United States.
	This is effectively not true.
	Okay, income mobility has not actually changed in the United States since, like, the 1970s.
	That is true as of The Economist, February 1st, 2014.
	America is no less socially mobile than it was a generation ago.
	There's this misperception, also when you talk about people working two jobs, that people work two jobs forever.
	That whatever is the job you hold today will be the job you hold tomorrow.
	There's no time horizon on economics in the view of people on the left and people who want government interventionism.
	Where you are today is where you will always end up.
	Nonsense.
	Absolute garbage.
	When people talk about the difference between the 1% and the 99%, for example, what they are missing is that people move in and out of the 1%.
	They're also missing that the 1% is disproportionately older.
	Why?
	Because old people are just richer?
	No, because they've spent their life building up wealth and building up careers.
	If you're working two jobs today, There's a good shot that in 10 years you won't be working two jobs.
	If you are working a job for $50,000 today, there's a very good shot that in 10 years you will not be working a job for $50,000, you'll be working a job for $75,000 or $100,000.
	Income mobility is still present in the United States.
	If you want to know why certain areas of the United States suffer from lack of income mobility, it's not because of the government.
	It is because, almost purely, not almost purely, but largely, largely, it is because of personal decision making.
	Income mobility declines radically when you make bad decisions.
	Okay, again, this does not mean it's a bad decision to work two jobs.
	As I say, often that's a fantastic decision to work two jobs.
	What I am saying is that if you make a decision to have a baby out of wedlock, for example, or to drop out of high school, or to not work a job, turns out you're not going to get ahead.
	I know lots of billionaires.
	Lots of them.
	I don't know a single billionaire, really, who grew up a billionaire.
	Not one.
	I know their kids, but the billionaires themselves, I mean, I could tell you stories.
	I know billionaires who grew up so poor it would make your head spin.
	I mean, people who grew up, because the American dream is that you will be able to rise over the course of time.
	So you working two jobs to put a roof over your head right now is not an indicator that you will be working two jobs forever in the United States.
	Also, it is simply not true, as I said yesterday on the show, and the part that everyone wants to ignore, that tons of people in the United States are desperately working two jobs in order to put a roof over their head.
	Everybody who is doing that is making a freely-willed decision to do that, and good for them.
	Good for them.
	You can't change that by rejiggering the economic status at the top by the Democratic Party.
	A wealth tax ain't gonna fix that problem.
	Because that problem is endemic to labor, supply, and demand.
	You're not gonna make a job that is worth $7.50 an hour worth $25 an hour simply because Elizabeth Warren says so.
	But it is worth noting that the United States is not suffering from a vast plague of people who must work two jobs in order to get ahead.
	In fact, AOC made that claim just about a year ago.
	And that claim was simply false.
	She said unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs.
	Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.
	This was rated pants on fire by PolitiFact.
	If PolitiFact ever gives a Democrat pants on fire, you know that it was just completely false.
	According to PolitiFact, multiple job holders account for a tiny fraction of American workers.
	Again, what you're hearing from Democrats is that it's everybody, so we have to dramatically rescale the economy.
	That's not going to work, number one.
	And number two, it is not everybody.
	In fact, it is a very, very small percentage of American workers, as held by PolitiFact, a left-wing source.
	It is also not true that people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week to put food on the table as a general rule.
	The Bureau of Labor Statistics, according to PolitiFact, breaks down its count of people with multiple jobs into three categories.
	People working one full-time job and one part-time job, people with two part-time jobs, and people working two full-time jobs.
	A worker with two full-time jobs is the smallest category of the three.
	The people who might be working 70 or 80 hours a week amount to a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage.
	310,000 people at most in a pool of employed Americans totaling 150 million.
	It's also worth noting that on average, Americans aren't working more today than they have been in the recent past.
	The average number of hours worked in the private sector has hugged tightly to about 34.5 hours a week since 2006, except for a dip during the Great Recession.
	So all of this table setting by the Democratic left, that America has no more income mobility, that everybody is working 80 hours and two jobs, it's just not true.
	It's just not true.
	We'll get to another myth of the left, which is that we don't spend any money trying to help people who are in poor economic circumstances.
	That is a lie as well.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, these days a lot of workplaces offer employees some pretty nice perks.
	It turns out Daily Wire is actually a pretty nice place to work.
	We offer people workplace snacks.
	Every so often they get to go home, spend five minutes with their family, come right back here.
	One of the perks of some companies is life insurance.
	But you don't really want to rely just on your workplace life 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 and let you know what additional coverage you might need.
	So remember, workplace life insurance policies, they're like workplace snacks.
	You know, they're good for what they're good for, but they're not quite good enough.
	Be an adult.
	Go get the level of life insurance that is necessary for your family to have in case, God forbid, something happens to you.
	We've been talking personal responsibility.
	The whole show.
	One aspect of personal responsibility, having insurance necessary to provide for your family in case, God forbid, something happens to you.
	Go check out my friends over at Policy Genius.
	It's policygenius.com.
	Find out how to supplement that workplace life insurance and better protect your family today.
	Okay, in just a second, we're going to get to the myth that America doesn't spend money on social welfare programs, on helping people out.
	Obviously, that is untrue.
	We'll also get to the myth that Democrats are innately more charitable, so that when we say that it's your personal choice how many jobs you want to work, or what kind of lifestyle you want to lead, and that you can find a strategy to better your life and we want to help you out, that we're not just saying that we don't want government involved.
	We actually do want to help you out.
	I will explain statistically how this is true from the right.
	First, gang, we are now in the homestretch.
	There are just a handful of days left to purchase tickets to our backstage live show.
	It's a special one-night-only event next Wednesday, August 21st at the Fantastic Terrorist Theater in Long Beach, California.
	I'll be there.
	Daily Wire, God King Jeremy Boring will be there, Andrew Klavan will be there, Michael Knowles will be there.
	We'll all be there live and we'll be talking politics and pop culture.
	We'll be answering your questions from the audience.
	Tickets are available at dailywire.com slash backstage, including our limited VIP packages that guarantee premium seating and photos and meet and greets with all of us.
	A gift from me, I've been shopping for it for you.
	And more, they're selling fast.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash backstage, get yours today.
	That's dailywire.com slash backstage.
	Also, while you're at it, why don't you just go over to Daily Wire and subscribe.
	You can just get that annual subscription, get yourself that leftist tears hot or cold tumbler.
	I know our friends over at Media Matters enjoy theirs since they watch the show every day.
	By the way, in terms of job creation, you're welcome, Media Matters.
	I'm employing half your people.
	Dailywire.com, go subscribe right now.
	When you do, you also help protect us from the evils of nasty groups like Media Matters trying to target this show and others who really appreciate it.
	it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So again, the myth pushed by politicians is that nobody can get a leg up in the American It is not true, statistically speaking.
	It is also untrue that the United States doesn't spend trying to help people who are suffering economically.
	It is simply untrue.
	According to the American Enterprise Institute, the Census Bureau reported in 2016 that about 13% of Americans lived in poverty.
	That is impossible to reconcile that poverty rate, which has remained virtually unchanged over the last 50 years, with the fact that total inflation-adjusted government transfer payments to low-income families have risen steadily.
	Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of about $3,000 per person in 1965 to $34,000 in 2016.
	Per person.
	Per year.
	Those numbers actually underestimate transfer payments to low-income families because they exclude Medicare and Social Security, which provide large subsidies to low-income retirees.
	The measured poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged because the Census Bureau doesn't count most of the transfer payments created since the declaration of the War on Poverty, which by the way has been a large-scale fail.
	Now, as for the notion that is being pushed by folks on the political left, it's a real, nefariously, the real reason that those of us on the right very often suggest that your life is in your own hands.
	It's not because we want people to help themselves.
	It's not because we believe that empowerment in America is about recognizing your own value as an independent, free human being.
	It is not because I've seen too many people fail because they don't believe in themselves, don't believe in their own capacity to make responsible decisions.
	No, the real reason is because I'm selfish and don't want to pay higher taxes.
	Let me explain.
	Republicans give way more in charity than Democrats do.
	And it's not charity, Democrats, when you are not taking the money out of your own pocket.
	It doesn't count as charity when you're taking money out of my pocket.
	That'd be you stealing my money from me.
	It's charity when I give the charity out of my own pocket.
	Which, yes, I do.
	And every other Republican I know does, too.
	And this is not anecdotal.
	This is statistical.
	Paul Sullivan, writing in the New York Times, November 3rd, 2018.
	Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated blue counties, according to a new study on giving.
	And then watch how the New York Times tries to backfill this.
	Although giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes.
	So in other words, they're now going to count you taxing other people as Democratic charity.
	Well, isn't that nice?
	I wish that I could count me voting to take your money and give it to a third party as charity.
	That seems delightful, frankly.
	It seems like I'd be able to really get around this whole trying to be a good person and give charity out of my own pocket thing simply by taking my business partner's money and giving that to charity.
	That sounds pretty fantastic.
	Well, this brings us to the end of this particular very long rant about economics in the United States.
	Suffice it to say, in summary, Your life is in your hands.
	Solve your own damn problems.
	Because they are your problems.
	And you are the solution to your problems.
	Not Kamala Harris.
	Not the government.
	That's the point.
	And if you believe differently, you're gonna live a much harder life as a general rule.
	Because your ability to control all of society to your liking, and in a moral fashion by forcing other people to do your will by bending them to your will, That is un-American.
	It is un-American to force other people to create the utopian situation for yourself against their will that you wish.
	It is wrong.
	It is morally wrong.
	There are certain things people do that are wrong to each other.
	Engaging in free and open exchange is not one of those things.
	If you want to make your life better, do it.
	Do it.
	And it's not gonna happen overnight.
	Doesn't mean that your choices are free right now.
	I'm not suggesting that you can go from working at McDonald's to being a billionaire overnight.
	Nobody has ever suggested that, nor would they, because it's idiotic.
	What I am suggesting is that in a free country, where we should all be grateful to live, it is not a sign of elitism.
	In fact, it's a sign, I think, of populism to say to folks, do your own will.
	Make yourself the center of your story and the hero of your story.
	Okay, meanwhile, let's talk a little bit About the insane media bias that surrounds every major event in the United States, not just taking me out of context and throwing me on Twitter for the boo box, but, you know, the actual insane media bias that pervades the system.
	So yesterday there was this horrible mass shooting in Philadelphia.
	And everybody decided in the media to jump to conclusions.
	So, CNN had on this representative who immediately, before any of the facts were out, we didn't know who the shooter was, we didn't know the situation, immediately started assuming this was about gun control.
	The representative is named Val Demings, and said, I think we can assume, you know, without any evidence, that this was probably high-powered rifles.
	I hold out very seriously that if this shooter in Philadelphia was armed simply with a handgun, that this gun battle would be going on well beyond an hour.
	I think we can assume that he is also heavily armed with high-capacity rifles or weapons and also has high-capacity magazines.
	We need to get these high-capacity weapons and magazines off of our streets.
	More gun laws.
	That's the solution.
	And CNN totally agrees.
	Wolf Blitzer used the ongoing shooting to pitch Kamala Harris' gun control program.
	Again, none of the information was actually out about what happened here.
	But Kamala Harris openly suggested that her solutions on gun control would have stopped the mass shooting in Philadelphia before she knew what the hell was going on.
	We need Congress to act.
	We do not lack for good ideas.
	We do not lack for tragedies.
	The failure of Congress, however, the United States Congress, to act on passing smart gun safety laws is the issue.
	So, when elected?
	I'll 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 am prepared to take executive action.
	To one, put in place a comprehensive background check requirement.
	Two, put the resources into the ATF to take the licenses from gun dealers who violate the law.
	And three, to ban the importation of assault weapons.
	So just to be precise, you want to give Congress 100 days and then take executive action.
	Some people say, you know what, Congress, given the 60 votes needed in the Senate, not going to do it.
	Why not take executive action on day one?
	Well, I believe in giving people a chance, especially when they know what's coming if they don't act.
	Oh, she would have stopped it.
	You know, she would have stopped it.
	She didn't even know what was going on.
	Well, now we know what was going on.
	Here is what was going on in Philadelphia.
	Quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer, police sources identified the gunman in a standoff at a Tioga apartment building that left six police officers injured as Maurice Hill, 36.
	He's not really a mass shooter, as we will see a Philadelphia man with a lengthy history of gun convictions and of resisting attempts to bring him to justice.
	Wait, wait, you mean a guy with a bunch of gun convictions for violating gun laws, had guns and used them to shoot police officers?
	You know what would have solved this?
	More gun laws.
	Obviously.
	If somebody just keeps shoplifting over and over and over, what we need is a new shoplifting law, not better enforcement.
	Not more guards.
	What we actually need is more shoplifting laws because if a serial lawbreaker realizes that we've stacked up one additional law, then probably they'll stop.
	Probably this guy would have stopped.
	If you just note, like if we had an assault weapons ban, probably this guy never would have violated another gun law despite the fact that he'd violated six of them.
	The police sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak.
	The standoff began Wednesday about 4 30 p.m.
	when a narcotics strike force unit attempted to serve a search warrant at a house.
	So, great.
	It turns out that what this really was, was it was a drug arrest gone bad, and that the person who was responsible for the shooting was in fact a serial offender.
	But we are going to get talk about gun control nonetheless.
	In fact, the mayor of Philadelphia came out and suggested gun control as a solution, despite the fact that, again, there's plenty of gun control, this guy's a serial gun offender, he doesn't care about violating the law.
	But our officers need help.
	They need help.
	They need help with gun control.
	They need help with keeping these weapons out of these people's hands.
	I mean, I told you earlier, the two little boys that were, the officer had his head grazed just a little bit more, and those two little boys will grow up without their dad.
	Because this government, both on the federal and state level, don't want to do anything about getting these guns off the streets and getting them out of the hands of criminals.
	Okay, so yeah, more gun laws.
	That'll probably solve it.
	It can't be the fact that the elected district attorney in Philadelphia, a guy named Larry Krasner, he's made it his entire mission to release prisoners from jail.
	And all the talk about criminal justice reform, people tend to forget that when you release criminals from jail, many of them go back to being criminals.
	Philadelphia Magazine had a piece on this going back just about a week and a half ago, or a couple of weeks ago.
	Well, a couple months ago, rather.
	It was June 27, 2019.
	It was an interesting social experiment.
	What happens in a major metropolitan city like Philadelphia when you elect a district attorney whose primary goal is releasing criminals rather than prosecuting them?
	The results, however, were all too predictable.
	Gun-related violent crime is rising in Philadelphia.
	The police force is demoralized.
	Victims of crimes, their families, advocacy groups feel betrayed.
	This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.
	When he was running for district attorney, Krasner, Larry Krasner, supported by a PAC funded by George Soros, made his commitment to social reform and reducing the inmate population quite clear.
	He promised to fundamentally transform the city's criminal justice system.
	No one can accuse Krasner of not following through.
	He's funneling an increased number of gun cases to a court diversionary program called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition.
	In 2018, Krasner's first year as DA, 78 cases were sent to this program compared with 12 the previous year.
	Why does this matter?
	Because criminals who carry guns usually intend to use them.
	Why?
	Look at that.
	It turns out that soft-on-crime policies tend to have soft-on-crime effects.
	Who would have thought that?
	But, very important, the media got Kamala Harris out there spouting her gun control nonsense.
	For those who don't believe, by the way...
	But the media are biased.
	I present to you PolitiFact.
	Okay, so I quoted PolitiFact earlier to demonstrate that even left-wing sources recognize the stupidity of suggesting that everybody in America is working two jobs.
	But, PolitiFact is in fact a terrible source on the left wing.
	Listen to this headline.
	Listen to this headline.
	Okay, the headline is this.
	New.
	Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren called Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson a murder.
	Legally, it wasn't.
	How much should this word choice matter?
	Oh, so you're not a fact-checking site.
	You're a site that actually actively undermines fact-checks.
	That's what politifact means.
	Well done, media.
	You know, they're just excellent.
	It is amazing to me, by the way, that Kamala Harris still has not been asked publicly about the Michael Brown tweet, right?
	She suggested that Michael Brown had been murdered.
	And as I pointed out, this has rather dire ramifications for a lot of people in the United States who then have a perverse view of how policing works.
	But nobody has asked her that.
	Fortunately, somebody did ask her about Steve King's latest dumbass comments.
	So Steve King, the congressman from Iowa who says something ridiculous every five minutes.
	I've maxed out to his opponent, Kevin Feenstra.
	You should too.
	In the fourth congressional district in Iowa.
	It didn't stop Twitter from trying to link me with King yesterday.
	In any case.
	Steve King said something very dumb yesterday about rape and incest.
	He was trying to make the case that there should not be abortion available in cases of rape and incest, a case with which I agree, and then he made it in the dumbest possible way.
	Here's what King had to say.
	We know the reasons why we don't accept exceptions, for the most of us, for rape and incest, because it's not the baby's fault.
	But there's another thing.
	I started to wonder about this.
	What if it was okay, and what if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest Will there be any population of the world left if we did that?
	Considering all the wars and all the rape and village that's taken place and whatever happened in culture after society, I know I can't certify that they're not part of a product of that.
	And I'd like to think every one of the lives of us are as precious.
	This is what we call a very dumb comments.
	So here is Steve King suggesting that we are all products of rape and incest, which seems to be sort of excusing both rape and incest as crimes, which of course is the stupidest thing ever.
	So Kamala Harris naturally gets asked by Wolf Blitzer about that, but he didn't ask her a single question about Michael Brown.
	This allows her to talk about how crazy Steve King is, which Is obviously sport for most people at this point.
	But again, Kamala Harris gets asked about that.
	But then she's got PolitiFact saying that it doesn't matter that she openly lied that Michael Brown was shot to death in Ferguson in a murder.
	It's unbelievable.
	We have to play the Wolf Blitzer clip.
	It's just it's just unbelievable.
	The hypocrisy.
	OK, meanwhile, in other news.
	There's a big hubbub that is brewing today because Israel has now denied entry to Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.
	Omar and Tlaib are both backers of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.
	They're both anti-Semites.
	The BDS movement is a movement to destroy the State of Israel.
	Its founders acknowledge as much.
	So, a few things on this.
	We have to separate out the legitimacy of Israel banning Omar and Tlaib entering as a legal and intellectual matter from the PR effect of it.
	So, as a legal and intellectual matter, Israel allows critics in all the time.
	In fact, there are many critics who are in Israel.
	Israel has Arab parties in the Knesset.
	Many of those Arab parties have in the past openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel.
	So, it's not that Israel can't take dissent.
	Israel takes an enormous amount of dissent.
	All the time.
	The question is, do you have to let somebody into your borders who has essentially claimed that you should not exist?
	And as an intellectual matter, the answer is, of course, no.
	The United States has no obligation to bring somebody in from abroad who is making the case that the United States ought to be destroyed as a sovereign entity.
	The United States has every ability to ban people like that.
	And in fact, Britain does this on a fairly regular basis, except they more broadly apply it to everybody they don't like.
	It actually is more of a free speech in Britain than it would be here.
	So as just an intellectual matter, barring people who claim they want to boycott Israel from entering Israel, doesn't seem like that big a deal as an intellectual matter.
	And it's not a violation of free speech.
	They are not citizens of the country.
	They're calling for the destruction of the country.
	It is pretty obvious that free speech does not encompass inclusion of people calling for the destruction of the entire system.
	That is true under virtually any definition of even American free speech.
	If you go out there and you're calling for the violent overthrow of the American government, you could be prosecuted for that.
	That is long-standing American Supreme Court law.
	In any case, is it really a big deal that Tlaib and Omar won't be able to enter?
	Well, not really on an intellectual level.
	And President Trump, of course, is happy.
	He encouraged Israel to bar Omar and Tlaib.
	It appeared before that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, was going to allow them, they were going to do their little propaganda trip around the Judea-Samaria area and the Gaza Strip, blame Israel for everything.
	They'd go home, they'd fuss about it, that would be the end of it.
	This is and then Trump apparently sounded off and said he didn't want them coming.
	Maybe that is because Trump again wants to use them as the face of the Democratic Party.
	Maybe he wants Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats to swing behind Omar and Tlaib and against Israel.
	Maybe he wants to polarize them more.
	Which brings us to the second point.
	Is this a smart move by Israel?
	No, it's a very not smart move by Israel.
	It's a very not smart move by Israel.
	This is going to result in what we call the Streisand effect.
	So, if Omar and Tlaib had just gone to Israel, and then they had done their little propaganda tour about how Israel is evil and shouldn't exist, then their ten fans would cheer, and everybody else would sigh and roll their eyes.
	Now, they've elevated that beyond this.
	This is actually giving Omar and Tlaib what they want, in terms of PR, so they can falsely claim that Israel doesn't tolerate dissent.
	That, of course, is a lie, but it does give them what they want.
	They will go around claiming this.
	The Streisand effect, of course, is where you bring attention to an issue you desperately don't want to bring attention to, and this is Israel making a pretty large mistake.
	Again, on an intellectual and moral level, they have no duty to bring in Omar and Tlaib.
	On a PR level, it's a big mistake.
	Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Hoteveli said that the country would not, quote, allow those who deny our right to exist in this world to enter.
	Hotevelli called it a very justified decision.
	It's unclear when Israeli officials made that final decision.
	Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, said, I think it would be helpful for anyone that has an opinion to come to the country, Most people believe, again, that it's that it's unhelpful for Israel to bar the sitting Congress people.
	But Trump was encouraging it.
	He tweeted out it would show great weakness if Israel allowed Representative Omar and Representative Tlaib to visit.
	They hate Israel and all Jewish people.
	There is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds.
	They are a disgrace.
	I agree with pretty much all of that, except the part that it's weakness for Israel to allow them to visit.
	Again, it's a PR blunder for them to give Omar and Tlaib what they want, which is to make the state of Israel look intolerant when they really are not.
	Democratic lawmakers, of course, jumped right on board.
	Jim Clymer tweeted, "This action is antithetical to our country's shared democratic values that are the basis for a strong bipartisan alliance." Yes, I'm sure.
	Okay, I'm sure that if a sitting member of the Israeli Knesset called for the violent destruction of the United States, called for the destruction of the United States as a sovereign entity, I'm sure Jim Clyburn would be up in arms if they couldn't visit.
	J Street, of course, sounded off, but who cares what they have to say because they're damned liars anyway.
	Again, bad PR move, but not morally unjustified.
	Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then we'll get to a thing that I hate.
	So, thing that I like today.
	Every so often, Trevor Noah actually is funny.
	He's on Comedy Central.
	He was talking about Chris Cuomo and Fredo Gabe.
	And Trevor Noah, who is black, pointed out to Chris Cuomo that no, calling somebody Fredo is not the same thing as calling them the N-word.
	Chris Cuomo doesn't mess around.
	Now I see why CNN makes people fight in separate boxes.
	That's just workplace safety.
	Yeah, Cuomo's like, if I wasn't in this box, I'd smash your face!
	And look, Cuomo was clearly pissed off, because he feels like when this guy called him Fredo, it's a negative Italian stereotype, all right?
	What's funny to me, though, was that his reaction that he chose also seemed like a negative Italian stereotype.
	He's like, what you say?
	I'll wreck your shit and throw you down these f***ing stairs, big man!
	You wanna talk to me?
	You wanna talk to me?!
	Fair.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	So everything about this Jeffrey Epstein death seems to be almost tailor-made for conspiracy theorizing.
	So we now have reports that there was corruption inside the jail, that both of the guards were asleep at the time of his suicide and then falsified their logs, and now we have a story on the autopsy.
	Excuse me.
	This is reported by LMT Online.
	An autopsy found that financier Jeffrey Epstein sustained multiple breaks in his neck bones, according to two people familiar with the findings, deepening the mystery about the circumstances around his death.
	Among the bones broken in Epstein's neck was the hyoid bone, which in men is near the Adam's apple.
	Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensic experts and studies on the subject.
	But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said.
	I know.
	So, more questions about Epstein's death.
	There's a story that was very vaguely worded about hearing shrieking down the hall.
	In the middle of this, it was unclear who was doing the shrieking.
	Was it guards?
	Was it fellow inmates?
	Was it Epstein himself while he was hanging himself?
	Again, I am not a believer in conspiracy theories.
	This is a very weird fact pattern.
	The medical examiner, the chief medical examiner in New York, has still listed the cause of his death as pending, and they didn't comment on the injuries found in the autopsy.
	A lot of people are speculating about this.
	I am not going to speculate about what happened here.
	But, again, this is like tailor-made for conspiracy theories at this point.
	Also, things that I hate.
	This painting.
	So apparently, in Jeffrey Epstein's New York mansion, there is a painting of Bill Clinton In a blue dress, which I can only assume is meant to mimic Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, pointing at the, what would be the camera if it were a picture, pointing at the observer in red shoes lying seductively across a lounge chair, basically.
	Confused.
	Confused.
	Not sure what this was supposed to be.
	But how is this guy?
	Just a question.
	How?
	How?
	I mean, for decades, everybody knew exactly what this guy was.
	How?
	And the only answer is that he was probably rich and powerful.
	I mean, that's the only answer I can come up with, because apparently he was given all sorts of special privileges by the New York authorities.
	The federal authorities kind of sweetheart deal with him, even though there's controversy over how sweetheart it was.
	This is some weird bleep, man.
	And it also sort of suggests that Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton were closer than was commonly speculated.
	There will be more shoes to drop here.
	I hope all the shoes drop.
	All the information should get out there as soon as possible.
	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.

▲