Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 22, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:57

Good Trump, Bad Trump: The Revenge | Ep. 845

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump pursues positive policies, but his wild statements get the headlines.
	Joe Biden banks on being boring.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	We have a lot to get to today.
	The news cycle seems to be getting more fragmentary and more wild.
	So that means lots of fun for us.
	So we will jump in in just one moment.
	First, these days, workplaces offer some pretty nice perks to their employees.
	Like for example, the folks who work at our company, they get to work like 18 hour days, they get to go home for four hours, come back in the morning and do this show.
	Also, they get some life insurance, but maybe the life insurance at your workplace isn't up to snuff.
	Or maybe it's pretty good, but you need more life insurance.
	Well, this is where Policy Genius comes in.
	Policy Genius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online.
	In 10 minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find the right amount of coverage at the best possible price.
	If you've got workplace life insurance, the Policy Genius team can review that policy and let you know what additional coverage you might need.
	Workplace life insurance policies, they're like workplace snacks.
	They're better than nothing, but they're not quite enough.
	Head on over to policygenius.com today, find out how to supplement your workplace life insurance and better protect your family.
	This is also the good adult thing to do.
	I know, no one likes to think about death, which means nobody likes to think about life insurance.
	So why spend tons of time thinking about it?
	Just get it taken care of, and that way if you plot, your family is taken care of, and you didn't spend half your life looking for life insurance.
	Go check them out at policygenius.com.
	They are really good at what they do, and they will help you out.
	Policygenius.com today.
	Find out how to supplement that workplace life insurance and better protect your family.
	Okay, so, as always, President Trump is an exercise in contradiction.
	This is a man who contains multitudes, multitudes.
	So we've been using this model since all the way back in 2015.
	And it's called the Good Trump, Bad Trump model.
	In fact, we even had a theme song for Good Trump, Bad Trump.
	And I think, is it time, guys?
	Should we bring back Good Trump, Bad Trump?
	I think the time has come.
	A little bit of our theme song, please.
	Good Trump, Bad Trump, which one will we get today?
	And now, because the President of the United States means that the news cycle is approximately 32 seconds long, we get plenty of both on any given day.
	Now, we used to have these little stick figure heads, and I'd put up the happy face for Trump, and I'd put up the sad face for Trump, but I didn't tell my producers to get that together, so that's not their fault.
	That one is on me, and we had a super late night.
	In any case, we begin with good Trump, because nobody is talking about the good Trump.
	The good Trump, as usual, is when it comes to policy.
	So as I have said since President Trump was elected, He has wildly surpassed my expectations in terms of policy.
	And the president actually has done some good policy things over the last 48, 72 hours.
	Now, all of that has been obscured, as we will see, by bad Trump.
	Because people pay a lot more attention to bad Trump than good Trump, because bad Trump is a lot louder.
	It's just like your kids.
	When your kids are good, you don't really notice them.
	When your kids are good, yeah, they're doing their homework, and they're reading books in their room, and they're not slamming their fingers into doors.
	You know, when they're doing that, you don't really notice them too much.
	But then when they're bad, then you really notice them a lot.
	Well, the same thing is true of presidents.
	So, let's talk about some of the good stuff that President Trump has been doing.
	So, finally, at long last, the Trump administration on Wednesday unveiled the regulation to allow it to indefinitely detain migrant families who illegally cross the border.
	I'm not saying it is wonderful to detain people who cross the border.
	I'm saying it is wonderful that we are changing the rules that created the necessity for family separation.
	So basically, the choice that was provided under law to the Trump administration, thanks to the so-called Flores Settlement in 1997 as amended by Obama administration regulations in 2015.
	The rules stated that if somebody came across the border with a family member, with a young child, the child could not be kept in custody with the parents for more than 20 days, which meant that you would have to separate the child from the parents if you wished to arrest the parents, or you would have to catch and release everybody.
	And this is why you've seen a dramatic skyrocketing number of families crossing the border, because if you're a parent and you want to be released into the general population, You should bring your child.
	That's the best way to do it.
	Let's say you got a cousin here.
	You bring your kid.
	You figure, okay, my kid will stay with my cousin.
	And then, after like two weeks, they will probably release me so that I can be with my kid because they don't want the bad optics of separating children from parents.
	Well, the Trump administration was dealing with that by saying, we're going to arrest everybody and if family separations occur, well, guess what?
	Them's the wages of being arrested.
	Everybody else in the United States, when they get arrested, They are separated from their kids.
	No different when it comes to illegal immigration and people illegally trying to claim, for example, asylum without being properly processed or trying to claim asylum when they are not actually eligible for asylum.
	Well, there was something that the Trump administration could always have done.
	It was under consideration for no good reason.
	It was delayed by the Department of Homeland Security.
	Now the Trump administration has come forward with a policy and the policy basically says they're going to create humane living conditions, which You need it, right?
	I mean, that is good.
	We want kids kept in humane living conditions with their families.
	That would be the goal.
	And they can do this by a shift in regulation.
	The rule replaces a decades-old court agreement that mandates a level of care for migrant children and limits how long the government can hold them in custody.
	For more than a year, the White House has pressed the Department of Homeland Security to find a way to eliminate the agreement, known as the Flores Settlement, which limits the time children can spend in detention and establishes minimum standards for holding facilities for families and children, according to The New York Times.
	Immigration hardliners inside the administration say the move is crucial to halting the flow of migrants across the southwestern border, which makes perfect sense.
	If it were not true that this were incentivizing families to cross the border, you would have not seen a skyrocketing number of families crossing the border.
	It would have been the same general population of illegal immigrants coming before, largely non-married men.
	That's who was crossing the border for a very long time in the United States.
	And then suddenly in the last few years, after the Obama administration put in place its regulatory response to Flores, the nature of the immigration shifted.
	And even the mainstream media were acknowledging that they were seeing a wild and crazy upswing in the number of families crossing the border.
	Why?
	Because when you change the incentive structure, people's behavior changes.
	The administration's goal with the new rule is deterrence, and its message to families fleeing Central America is blunt.
	Come here and we'll lock you up.
	Critics say it is the latest in a series of policies by President Trump meant to close off the United States from the rest of the world.
	No, this is the latest in a series of policies by President Trump to enforce our immigration laws.
	If you cross the border, you should be held in detention until you are processed, and we should provide the proper methods to keep you in humane conditions.
	We should provide the proper resources to the courts so that we can process you quickly, and we can deport you if you need deportation, and so that you can be admitted if you deserve asylum.
	This entire process should be wildly expedited, and resources must be devoted to the border along these grounds.
	President Trump said on Wednesday, one of the things that will happen when they realize the borders are closing, the wall is being built, we are building tremendous numbers of miles of wall right now in different locations, it all comes together like a beautiful puzzle.
	Boom.
	Like a thousand piece beautiful puzzle of a rhinoceros.
	Speaking to reporters at the White House, President Trump asserted, the new rule would make it almost impossible for people to come into our country illegally.
	Well, it would certainly make it more difficult for people to be released into the country illegally.
	The catch and release programs that the Democrats have been pushing for basically allow people to be released into the country.
	They show up for their first court hearing and then a second court hearing is set.
	If they are not processed within a certain amount of time, they actually get an automatic visa.
	And then people just overstay the visa.
	And that's how you end up with folks in the United States for 10, 15 years overstaying a visa that they received because the system was too slow.
	The new regulation does require approval from a federal judge as well.
	Administration officials said they expected it to be immediately challenged in court once in effect, it would specifically abolish a 20 day limit on detaining families in immigration jails.
	A cap that President Trump has repeatedly complained has led to the catch and release of families, which, of course, is also true.
	Also, as I say, the other half of this regulation, which is good and necessary, is it establishes minimum necessities at detention centers because we don't need more stories of detainee children being kept under aluminum foil wrapping.
	People who come here should be treated humanely.
	Many of those people are going to end up becoming American citizens.
	Even if they weren't, they should be treated humanely, obviously.
	Kevin McAleenan said what this will do is substantially increase our ability to end the catch-and-release challenges that have fueled the crisis.
	He's the acting Secretary of Homeland Security.
	He said the regulation restores integrity to our immigration system, but provide high standards for the care of children.
	Naturally, people at the ACLU are calling this an attack on children.
	So just to get this straight, the ACLU believes it's an attack on children to separate them from their parents, but it's also an attack on children to not separate them from their parents.
	So the only solution, according to the ACLU, is, in fact, catch and release.
	Combine catch and release with the Democrats' proposal to get rid of criminal penalties for crossing the border illegally, and combine that in turn with the stated Democratic position by most of the major presidential candidates that they would not deport anyone in the United States illegally Who does not have a separate crime on record except for illegal immigration?
	And suddenly you're talking a full-on open borders regime.
	I mean that is what the ACLU and so many folks on the left are talking about when they say we're not pro open borders.
	Then they're going to have to explain how they can simultaneously hold that catch and release should be the generalized policy, that there should be no criminality attached to illegally crossing the border, and that nobody should be deported except If they commit a crime that is not illegally crossing the border.
	That is an open borders policy.
	There's no other way to put it.
	That's not just me saying it.
	Former Homeland Security Secretary under Barack Obama, Jeh Johnson, said the same thing.
	So this is a good piece of policy from the Trump administration.
	And it's not getting a lot of coverage, specifically because it does cut against a lot of the media's narrative when it comes to illegal immigration.
	The New York Times obviously is covering it, but you haven't seen it too much on CNN or MSNBC.
	Why?
	Because these regulations do include provisions about treating everybody humanely.
	So we'll have to see how the regulations are drawn.
	But if they do what they are supposed to do here, this is a good piece of policy by the Trump administration.
	Another good piece of policy by the Trump administration.
	So the Trump administration has now promulgated regulations surrounding Title 10 funding.
	And those regulations surrounding Title X funding say that if we give you money for a family planning program, that it can't be used for abortion.
	And that means that you have to have a separate facility where you're not providing abortions, and we will fund those.
	We're not going to provide the facilities where the abortions are happening.
	And we are not going to allow you to use the money fungibly.
	This has been one of the major critiques of Title 10.
	By conservatives, it is correct.
	If you sign a giant check to Planned Parenthood and say, we want you to use this for birth control.
	And then Planned Parenthood says, we'll use it for birth control.
	And then they just use it to paint their building.
	Or they use it to pay their secretaries.
	That they are actually using the money to pay expenses that alleviate the cost of providing abortions.
	The taxpayer funding is in fact being used to pay abortions.
	I mean, the argument is basically that if you and your wife have a joint bank account, and you put all your money in the joint bank account, and your wife goes shopping, you are paying for her shopping.
	Right?
	Obviously, this is true.
	And vice versa, if your wife is the one who's the main breadwinner in your house.
	Well, if you are putting money into a slush fund for Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood is performing lots of abortions, you are funding Planned Parenthood's abortions.
	Well, the Title X rules just changed.
	The federal government cannot legally pay for most abortions, according to The Atlantic, but it does give money to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood for all sorts of other reproductive health services, especially for low-income women.
	For years, conservatives have been arguing that money is fungible, and if you cut a check to Planned Parenthood, it will be used for abortion.
	That's why the Trump administration took aim at Title X, a decades-old family planning program that provides money for low-income women to access birth control, cancer, and STD screenings, breast exams, and more.
	Under the new rule, Title X recipients are no longer allowed to provide women with information about where and how they can get an abortion, and they cannot encourage women to seek out the procedure.
	So if a woman comes in and she says, I want an abortion, they're not allowed to say, well, great idea, you should have one.
	They're not allowed to encourage abortion, and that's what Planned Parenthood has been doing.
	Planned Parenthood routinely encourages abortion, as opposed to providing a fulsome view of the choices available to a woman legally.
	That's why Planned Parenthood has long opposed the mandatory use of ultrasound before an abortion takes place, because it turns out that once women tend to see the living baby inside of them, they're much less apt to kill the living baby inside of them.
	A frequently asked question on the HHS website says that the rule permits, but does not require, non-directive counseling on abortion.
	Meaning that it doesn't say you have to tell women where they can get an abortion, but it allows you to counsel on abortion.
	It allows doctors to provide patients with complete factual information about all medical options, but Title X recipients may not encourage a patient to seek an abortion.
	It does not reduce family planning funding by a single dollar, it's just that basically Planned Parenthood is now withdrawn from Title X funding because they say we're not going to open a separate facility, we are not going to not direct people to have abortions, so we just won't take the $60 million of federal funding that was normally coming our way.
	On the HHS website, the administration directly calls out Planned Parenthood, which claims to serve 40% of all Title X recipients in the country.
	The website says, to the extent that Planned Parenthood claims that it must make burdensome changes to comply with the final rule, it is actually choosing to place a higher priority on the ability to refer for abortion instead of continuing to receive federal funds.
	This is exactly right.
	This is exactly right.
	Planned Parenthood cares more about pushing abortion than they do about all other forms of reproductive women's health.
	Otherwise, they could just split off an organization that doesn't do abortion.
	But they're not going to do that because they are an abortion mill.
	They've always been an abortion mill.
	So good for the Trump administration for pushing that policy forward.
	Okay, so that is the good Trump.
	In a second, we are going to get to the bad Trump, because unfortunately, the bad Trump gets a lot more press than the good Trump.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, President Trump has, in fact, as I've been talking about, kept a lot of his promises, right?
	Now, he's effectively succeeded in defunding Planned Parenthood.
	He's obviously trying to do his best in enforcing our immigration laws.
	He has passed a massive tax cut.
	He's moved the embassy to Jerusalem.
	The president's done a lot of really good things on policy.
	He's running his re-election campaign, at least in part, on this record.
	I wish he were running his whole re-election campaign on that record.
	But he's still chasing after one of his goals, which is to bring down the cost of prescription drug prices.
	A lot of folks on the left, the press, yes, even some big governments are making that kind of hard for President Trump to actually bring down those prices.
	The result is that, amazingly, some people in the Trump administration, in the name of claiming victory, want to adopt some of the left's socialistic top-down price control plans, which is not a good idea.
	Help FreedomWorks stop Senate Democrats from capping your care.
	Go to DontCapMyCare.com and sign the petition.
	A lot of people have been talking price controls on drugs through Medicare.
	There's a problem with this.
	Price controls generally lead to less innovation and less investments.
	That's exactly the stuff that you need.
	The R&D that is going to develop all of the new treatments and methods of care that are necessary in medicine.
	America is responsible for over half of the world's medical innovation.
	It's imperative that that continue.
	Head on over to DontCapMyCare.com right now.
	Help FreedomWorks stop the Senate from capping your care.
	Sign that petition right now.
	Again, that's DontCapMyCare.com right now.
	And help FreedomWorks stop the Senate from capping your care.
	DontCapMyCare.com.
	Okay, so...
	Now, unfortunately, it is time to get to bad Trump.
	So there are a bunch of minor stories.
	I don't know why President Trump feels the necessity to speak out on every issue.
	As I have said repeatedly for years at this point, I proposed a couple of strategies for President Trump to win re-election.
	Strategy number one is that the White House creates an alternative Twitter app and they vote it on the president's phone.
	And the president tweets into the Twitter app.
	And it just spits back automated messages.
	MAGA, you're the best.
	We love you.
	Hashtag MAGA.
	And then jiff of Trump on a tank, right?
	And then Trump just sits there and he's super happy all the time.
	It goes about his business.
	We get all the good policies that we're talking about.
	And nobody ever hears about the stuff that he's tweeting into the Twitter machines.
	That's solution number one.
	Solution number two is that we stock the upstairs of the White House with maybe a bunch of reruns of Shark Week, maybe a porn star or two.
	And then he just hangs out there for a couple of years and he doesn't talk very much in public.
	And then he's president forever, basically.
	But the president, because When he is frustrated, he tends to lash out.
	And he is frustrated at the media.
	And by the way, his frustration with the media is justified.
	I'm not saying that he shouldn't be frustrated with the media.
	He certainly should be frustrated with the media.
	They're garbage at their jobs.
	We'll get to that in a minute, but...
	Trump does not help himself when he creates a feeling of chaos in a time when there should not be great feelings of chaos.
	We do not have a chaotic foreign policy situation on the horizon right now.
	We do not have a chaotic domestic economic situation right now.
	And yet there is this palpable feeling of chaos and it is forwarded by President Trump feeling the necessity every five minutes to sound off on whatever random thing he sees on the news that day.
	Listen, I love talk radio.
	I'm on talk radio, right?
	I enjoy talk radio.
	But we don't need President Donnie from Queens, you're on line one.
	We need President Trump to feel like a steady presence in American life.
	Somebody who is steady and solidifying.
	Do you feel that?
	I think a lot of women in the suburbs don't feel that.
	I think the polling is showing that.
	Well, yesterday, President Trump decided it was time to sound off on a variety of random topics.
	He decided that he was going to attack Ford Motor Company.
	Why?
	What was the point of this?
	Well, apparently he's angry at Ford Motor Company because Ford Motor has backed a deal with California for stricter fuel economy standards.
	Now, I don't blame Ford for that.
	The state of California is creating its own state efficiency standards with regard to cars that can drive in California and are licensed to drive in California.
	And this means that Ford is figuring, OK, well, it is cheaper for us to produce those cars because California is a huge market.
	Well, Trump got really mad at this, and he started tweeting out about it.
	I don't know why.
	No idea why.
	Like, is there a point to this?
	than to produce less fuel-efficient cars, and then have to create special fuel-efficient cars just for California.
	Well, Trump got really mad at this, and he started tweeting out about it.
	I don't know why.
	No idea why.
	Is there a point to this?
	Trump tweeted out, Henry Ford would be very disappointed if he saw his modern-day descendants wanting to build a much more expensive car that is far less safe and doesn't work as well because execs don't want to fight California regulators.
	Car companies should know that when this administration's alternative is no longer available, California will squeeze them to a point of business ruin.
	Only reason California is now talking to them is because the feds are giving a far better alternative, which is much better for consumers.
	Now, I may not like California's fuel efficiency standards, but I understand why Ford Motor Company is saying to itself, we can't rely on President Trump loosening fuel efficiency standards for the next 18 months to build out our entire business line.
	It's possible he won't be president in 18 months.
	It is also quite possible that even if he is president in 18 months, he has a Democratic Congress or he changes his mind on fuel efficiency.
	Whatever the truth is on this, the chances that fuel efficiency standards are going to remain low in the United States are extremely low.
	So if you're the business person over at Ford, This is not a political thing.
	This is a business thing.
	If you're the business person over at Ford and you have to put in place the technologies to develop new cars, why would you follow the temporarily loosened standards and fight the state of California when you understand that the long-range goals of the government, more generally speaking, are to crack down on your industry and make fuel efficiency higher rather than lower?
	Ford is one of four automakers, along with Honda, BMW, and Volkswagen, that reached a voluntary agreement with California on fuel efficiency rules, defying President Trump and his administration's effort to strip the state of the right to fight climate change by setting its own standards.
	The rules under the California plan are looser than the Obama-era regulations, but stricter than what Trump has proposed.
	And again, this is because if you're a business, you're going to hedge your bets.
	When government is this big, you hedge your bets.
	Trump said that the company founder, Henry Ford, would be very disappointed, Ford said in a statement it is focused on acting to protect the environment while also protecting the affordability of vehicles.
	Obviously there are a lot of new consumers who actually are sort of concerned about carbon emissions and they are looking for fuel efficiency as well.
	Turns out it is cheaper many times to get a fuel efficient car over the course of time.
	They said this agreement with California provides regulatory stability while reducing carbon emissions more than complying with two different standards.
	That is what I am saying.
	The business case is, why would we have a standard for California and a standard for the rest of the country, and design our factories to comply with both standards, as opposed to having one uniform standard?
	There's no evidence that existing fuel economy rules would degrade vehicle performance, as President Trump suggests.
	It is true that the cars will be lighter.
	I mean, that is sort of how this works.
	If you want a more fuel-efficient vehicle, the car can't be quite as heavy.
	But as we move to lighter cars on the road, pretty much all the cars on the road are lighter.
	This is why if you have a car from 1970, it looks like a tank right now.
	Whatever the case may be, is it beneficial for the president to be tweeting out about Henry Ford and creating a news cycle in which he's at war with one of America's iconic motor companies?
	Is this a great idea in the run-up to an election where he needs to win, hmm, like Michigan?
	Is that a smart move?
	Well, if you liked that one, I got another one for you.
	The president's going to war with Denmark.
	So that's exciting.
	I mean, I know that when I woke up a couple of days ago, I thought to myself, you know what?
	Those, those Danes, we got to do something about Greenland, man.
	Greenland!
	The future of America lies on glaciers.
	Now listen, I'm fine.
	I'm all for buying Greenland.
	You want to buy?
	And frankly, I don't think it's a big deal that President Trump wanted to buy Greenland.
	The fact is that the United States bought the U.S.
	Virgin Islands from Denmark.
	They were called the Dutch West Indies until we bought them and turned them into the U.S.
	Virgin Islands.
	Solid real estate deal.
	But President Trump has decided that it is imperative that we get into a diplomatic spat when Greenland says it's not for sale.
	We're now going to have an international issue over whether we buy a giant island that has 56,000 people on it.
	What are we going to do?
	Like, relocate?
	Populations there like what are we talking about doing with Greenland that makes it so all fired important that we're now canceling state visits to Denmark.
	So President Trump is now in a personal spat with the Prime Minister of Denmark, which is just that's what we needed, right?
	I mean, I just talked about all the good policy Trump is pursuing.
	But certainly what makes the American people feel more safe and secure and solid is when the president is in a pissing match with the prime minister of Denmark because of all the cruel, inhumane states on planet Earth that we need to face down and look directly in the eye.
	Denmark, man.
	Those Danes.
	Can't be trusted.
	Not in the slightest.
	Kim Jong-un?
	Best friends.
	Prime Minister of Denmark?
	Screw that person!
	President Trump on Wednesday lashed out at the Danish Prime Minister, met Frederiksen, saying the leader of the U.S.
	ally had made nasty comments about his interest in having the United States purchase Greenland.
	Trump announced on Tuesday night he was calling off a planned two-day visit to Copenhagen early next month over Frederiksen's refusal to entertain the sale of Greenland.
	Apparently Trump tweeted this out.
	He said, I thought it was not a nice statement, the way she blew me off.
	She shouldn't treat the United States that way.
	She said, absurd.
	That's not the right way.
	That's not the right word to use.
	President Trump is an expert in the use of words.
	He has all of the best words.
	Is this worthwhile?
	Honestly, is it worthwhile?
	I understand he's going to be Trump.
	We all get it at this point.
	But is that a good thing for his reelection prospects?
	Just generally, is it necessary?
	In a second, we'll talk a little bit more about the bad Trump aspect of bad Trump, and then we'll get to the media treatment, which of course is bizarre and insane and should be an entire line of attack for President Trump going into 2020.
	We'll get to that in just a second.
	First, I love my Helix sleep mattress.
	In fact, I love it so much that I was late for my show this morning.
	I mean, the fact is, That Helix mattresses are top notch.
	They are so good that I got one for my sister and her husband upon the occasion of their marriage.
	That was our wedding gift to them because they are awesome.
	They are personalized to you.
	Helix Sleep has a quiz.
	It takes just two minutes to complete.
	It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	No matter how you sleep, on your side, on your back, hot sleep, or whatever, Helix can make what your body needs.
	Just go to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	They will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
	For couples, Helix can even split that mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and feel preferences for each side.
	They've got a 10-year warranty.
	You get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it.
	But you will.
	Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
	Get up to $125 off at HelixSleep.com slash Ben, which is a spectacular deal.
	Again, my wife and I took that two-minute sleep quiz, and it's great.
	It's fantastic.
	That's HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	HelixSleep.com slash Ben for up to $125 off your mattress order.
	HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Go check it out right now.
	Okay, so...
	As I say, two things I did not think needed to be at the top of the headlines.
	So I've given you two big headlines for Trump.
	One, actually promulgating regulations that will cut down on illegal immigration and also will allow children to stay with their parents.
	After two years of controversy over that, that's a big thing.
	Thing number two, that's a big thing.
	Planned Parenthood defunding.
	Big promise kept.
	Shouldn't those be the things we're talking about today?
	Well, instead we're talking about Trump vs. Ford and Trump vs. Denmark over Greenland.
	Chris Matthews, of course, very upset over this.
	Chris Matthews says it's unbelievable.
	President Trump going to Denmark?
	Coming here in the morning?
	Coming to the show?
	All crazy looking?
	I mean, why are you getting angry at the Danes?
	Why are you so angry?
	I mean, I love Hans Christian Andersen.
	I like the old lady who lived in a shoe.
	All sorts of fairy tales I love.
	I'll tell you what I love most of all.
	I love coming in here half drunk and talking about President Trump and Bugsy Siegel and making gangster references go.
	President Trump is picking a fight with a loyal American ally for no apparent reason.
	He's cancelled a state visit to Denmark, insulted its prime minister, and thrown an historic relationship into chaos.
	Denmark is a good country.
	It's pro-American as hell.
	It's that now, like, we dream the world would be an hour of any country like our country.
	And now this guy like Bugsy Siegel walks by, like in a movie, Warren Beatty played the guy, goes, buy a house.
	I'd like that house.
	Goes in the house and says, I want to buy your house.
	Does that say Warren Beatty?
	Love it.
	Warren Beatty was terrible.
	Warren Beatty was great in Shampoo.
	Wasn't as great in Reds.
	I liked the message of the movie Reds.
	Very pro-communist.
	But I didn't like really Warren Beatty's performance.
	But this is just like Bugsy Siegel.
	That was a movie nobody saw, right?
	It was supposed to be really good.
	Wasn't that good?
	Because Warren Beatty's kind of overrated.
	Kind of liked him in Bulwark.
	Whatever that movie was.
	Remember that?
	Chris Matthews.
	Remember what he was saying?
	Sorry, once I get into the Chris Matthews, it's very difficult to get out of the Chris Matthews.
	In any case, you can see what the media are in it for, right?
	The media would love a feeling of chaos.
	This is the Democratic campaign 2020.
	Democratic campaign strategy 2020.
	Trump's crazy.
	That's the campaign.
	That's the whole campaign.
	And Democrats are totally into it.
	And when President Trump gets angry about that, he's not totally wrong.
	Right.
	So President Trump yesterday was talking about the economy.
	And there are, in fact, some economic reports that are not good for the president.
	There is a report that came out yesterday that said that the United States created half a million fewer jobs since 2018 than previously reported, according to new figures.
	So we dramatically overestimated the number of jobs that were created.
	As of 2018 and early 2019, the newly revised figures, according to Market Watch, indicate the economy didn't get a huge boost last year from the Trump tax cuts and higher federal spending.
	They also signaled that the economy is a bit weaker than previously believed and could give the Federal Reserve even greater reason to cut interest rates in September.
	I mean, really what it indicates, considering that wages have been going up, is that we may have maxed out the employment market just generally.
	We didn't create all that many new jobs because innovation remains kind of low, but the jobs that are there, there are a lot of people who, the employers are looking for people to fill those jobs.
	With that said, the revised numbers downward are really not good for Trump.
	It's the biggest revision downward since 2009.
	The annual benchmark revision is much larger, about three times larger than is typically the case.
	So President Trump is facing that headwind.
	It is also true that Trump is struggling to figure out exactly how to combat the possibility of an economic slowdown.
	He says there will be no more payroll tax cuts.
	So that had been floated by the White House, then unfloated by the White House, then floated by the White House again, apparently.
	He said the nation already had a strong economy.
	Trump's been sending mixed signals on all of this.
	Also, the deficit continues to soar.
	President Trump has fought all of this by blaming the Federal Reserve.
	And so President Trump says, you know, the Federal Reserve is to blame.
	We need to lower the the interest rates.
	Again, this is not a message of solidity.
	You want a message that everything's fine, right?
	That is because everything is basically fine, right?
	But instead, President Trump is out there saying everything is fine.
	Also, the Federal Reserve should act like this is a crisis and cut the and cut the interest rates by 100 basis points, which is basically an emergency size Fed rate cut.
	Here's President Trump yesterday.
	Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve have totally missed the call.
	I was right, and just about everybody admits that.
	He raised interest rates too fast, too furious.
	And we have a normalized rate.
	You call it that.
	And now we have to go the other direction.
	We'll see if he does it.
	If he does it, you'll see a rocket ship.
	You'll see a — if he does it, we have a very strong economy.
	The Federal Reserve has let us down.
	They missed the call.
	They raised them too fast.
	They raised it too high.
	And they did quantitative tightening.
	They shouldn't have done the tightening, and they shouldn't have raised them to the extent — we could have had some raises, but nothing like they did.
	Too fast, too furious.
	I went and saw Hobbs and Shaw over the weekend.
	It was unbelievable.
	Those people, The Rock, unbelievable.
	But Trump is not wrong that Democrats are talking down the economy.
	He's not wrong that the media and Democrats are looking for a dual narrative.
	One, the economy is not as strong.
	Two, that Trump is a wild man.
	Those are the dual narratives that Democrats are pushing.
	Trump said Democrats are talking down the economy.
	He is correct.
	The fake news, of which many of you are members, He's trying to convince the public to have a recession.
	Let's have a recession.
	The United States is doing phenomenally well.
	But one thing I have to do is economically take on China.
	Because China has been ripping us off for many years.
	President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama and others should have done this long before me.
	Okay, so Trump is not wrong that they're talking down the economy.
	By the way, the media are treating it like a great revelation when a president suggests that his political opposition is talking down the economy.
	Barack Obama said the same thing in 2012.
	He said that Republicans were talking down the economy when we were in the middle of this very, very weak recovery.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about why it is not worthwhile to visit the post office.
	The post office has lots of great services.
	They do a lot of wonderful things for you.
	But one thing about the post office that kind of sucks is that you have to go there, right?
	You have to go there.
	You have to wait in line.
	It takes more time.
	Last time I went to the post office, I got a giant ticket because Los Angeles is governed like the garbage city that it's turned into.
	It's a city where if I were to sit outside the post office shooting heroin into my veins and crapping on the sidewalk, the cops would do nothing.
	But if I park outside in the red zone for more than five minutes, then I get a $120 ticket.
	That's what happened last time I was at the post office.
	Not me crapping on the sidewalk and doing heroin, me getting a parking ticket.
	Well, I'm no longer going to the post office.
	Instead, I use stamps.com.
	Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S. Postal Service directly to your computer.
	Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
	Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
	postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
	Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
	It is indeed that simple.
	With Stamps.com, you get 5 cents off every first class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail.
	Not to mention, it is a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
	Stamps.com.
	It's a no-brainer.
	It saves you time.
	It saves you money.
	It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com right now.
	Our listeners get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage, digital scale, no long-term commitment.
	Hell of a deal.
	Just go to Stamps.com.
	Click that microphone at the top of the homepage.
	Type in Shapiro.
	That's Stamps.com.
	Enter Shapiro.
	In just a second.
	We're going to get to why Trump is correct that Democrats are talking down the economy, why that's not a new narrative from a president, and then we'll get to how the media are really pushing hard for the Democratic narrative.
	You know, my friend Andrew Breitbart used to call it the Democrat media complex.
	That's what it is.
	That's what it is.
	No questions.
	No doubt.
	We'll get to that in one second.
	First, The Daily Wire has turned four years old.
	We are thrilled about this because if it had not, we would not be here talking to you right now.
	So you should be thrilled too.
	As a thank you to our fans who have made that possible, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses this code.
	It's secret.
	You ready?
	Birthday.
	That's right, for all of August, as we celebrate this milestone, we are giving away a free first month for new premiums monthly subscribers.
	Again, just use that magic code, BIRTHDAY, and come join the fun, make the magic happen.
	Also, go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
	When you do, you get this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler.
	Unbelievable.
	And if you've never seen a life-sized Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler, and when I say life-sized, I mean like the size of a human being, you should have come to our event last night.
	Where one of our producers was forced by us to don the costume of a Leftist Hears Hot or Cold Tumblr and go to war with a Louder With Crowder life-size mug.
	It was amusing to us, but not to the audience.
	It cost a fortune, but it amused us.
	So at least we fulfilled that purpose.
	And that's where your hard-earned subscriber dollars are going, to putting our producers in life-size tumblers.
	I know.
	It sounds like just a party over here, right?
	It isn't.
	Let me just tell you, we all worked 18 hour days yesterday and now we're back here with you again.
	If you want to keep us bringing you the show, please subscribe.
	We really appreciate it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Okay, so when President Trump says the Democrats are talking down the economy, he is eminently correct.
	Obviously, this is true.
	You know who else says he's right?
	John Delaney, Democratic presidential candidate, and the only sane person left in the Democratic field.
	Here's John Delaney saying, yeah, Democrats are cheering on a recession.
	It feels like some Democrats are cheering on a recession because they want to stick with Trump.
	I don't want a recession because I don't want these workers in here to face a recession.
	But I worry that Trump's policies are bringing one on.
	Now, the media keeps saying about Trump, we're not talking down the economy.
	How dare he?
	That's unprecedented.
	Yeah, sure.
	Barack Obama, circa 2012, saying the exact same thing.
	Every president suggests that if the economy is weakening, that it's the opposition talking down the economy.
	There is going to be a debate going on around the budget in the coming months.
	Republicans in Congress are sadly trying to cut some of the investments that could spur additional growth.
	That's the debate that is worthy of the American people.
	Not fantasy.
	Not name-calling.
	Not trying to talk down the American economy.
	What we have done has made a difference.
	And that there's a huge gap between the rhetoric that's going on out there and the reality of success.
	Okay, so Obama's doing exactly the same thing circa 2012 that Donald Trump is doing today, but it's very, very bad when Donald Trump does it, according to the media.
	And this brings us to the media.
	Again, the dual narrative that is now being promoted by the media.
	By and large, it falls into two categories.
	One, the economy is going to crash.
	It's going to burn.
	We're all going to die.
	Okay.
	Now, there are real signs of a recession that may happen in the next two years sometime.
	But right now, the fundamentals of the American economy remain pretty strong despite the downgrading of growth rates from last year.
	And the fact is that probably sometime in the next four years, there will be a recession because every 10 to 12 years in the United States, we have a recession.
	We had one in 2000.
	We had one in 2007, 2008.
	We had one in 1991.
	We had one in 1987.
	We had one in 1980, right?
	So the recessions are fairly common in American life.
	It's been a while since we've had one, right?
	Technically speaking, it has been since 2009 since we have had a recession.
	We are all the way in 2019.
	So you would expect that sometime in the next few years, there will be a recession.
	But the notion that we are on the verge of it because of Trump or something like that is just silly.
	But that's what the media are pushing at this point.
	They're pushing that narrative and they're pushing the Trump is wild man narrative.
	And so, when Trump gets angry at the media, he's not wrong.
	Now, pushing the Trump is a wild man narrative, the New York Times has an editorial today, and this is so rich, it is beyond believing.
	The New York Times has an editorial today called, Mr. Trump, stop questioning the loyalty of American Jews.
	This, of course, follows on the heels of President Trump suggesting that Jews who vote Democrat are disloyal.
	And as I explained yesterday, there are a couple of ways to read that that are a real problem, and then there's one way to read it that really is not a problem.
	And the way to read it that's not a problem is that Judaism is a philosophy and a religion and that that philosophy and religion has certain tenets that do not match up with the Democratic Party.
	I've said that myself.
	I will continue to say that myself because it happens to be 100% true.
	Nonetheless, the New York Times suggesting that Trump is the great anti-Semite, the New York Times has spent the last several months defending At peril of its own credibility, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
	When Ilhan Omar said openly anti-Semitic things, the headline from the New York Times was, Ilhan Omar's criticism raises the question, is AIPAC too powerful?
	So just to get this straight, they're accusing Trump of engaging in dual loyalty smears in order to harm Jews because he's a brutal, vicious anti-Semite who happens to be the most pro-Israel president in American history.
	And also, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are wonderful.
	This is gaslighting of the highest order.
	If you want to boil down the last 48 hours of Trump controversy, it goes on the Jewish thing.
	It goes something like this.
	Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are openly anti-Semitic.
	The media go, oh, those awful Jews in Israel being so mean to Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
	Trump going, I can't believe the Jews would vote for the party that supports Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.
	And the media going, look at that anti-Semitism.
	Right, that's the narrative.
	So spare me, New York Times, spare me.
	And by the way, spare me all of your talk about purity when it comes to your own publication.
	Breitbart has a big report today about a New York Times political editor with a years-long history of anti-Semitic and racist comments on his Twitter page.
	His name is Tom Wright Piersanti.
	He's been a senior staff editor at the New York Times for more than five years, according to his LinkedIn page, and his Twitter page oversees the newspaper's political coverage.
	There are a bunch of tweets that he has sent out over the years.
	In 2010, he sent one out that said, I was going to say crappy Jew year, but one of my resolutions is to be less anti-Semitic.
	So happy Jew year, you Jews.
	Sounds like a delight.
	He also, in 2009, tweeted out a picture of a Chabad vehicle that has a menorah on top of it.
	And he said, who called the Jew police?
	And so it sounds like a wonderful dude.
	Now, I will note here, I don't think that he should be fired because I have a basic rule when it comes to American life.
	Digging up old crap on people and then using it to destroy their careers is a leftist tactic.
	It is a leftist tactic because it doesn't tell you much about what they believe today.
	You can't go back in a time machine and change it and delete it.
	I said this about Ralph Northam.
	I've said this about Sarah Zhang.
	I've said it on the right side of the aisle about a bevy of figures.
	I don't think that it's a good tactic.
	However, the New York Times standard is not my standard.
	Their standard is that anybody should be able to be destroyed based on older material.
	So as a matter of mutually assured destruction, I don't think that it's inappropriate for the right to point this out.
	I would also say that the New York Times I'm going to take it with a large grain of salt when they start sounding off about anti-Semitism.
	Anderson Cooper was doing the same thing last night, again, pushing the narrative that everything is crazy inside the administration and Trump's an anti-Semite and it's all too wild.
	Here is Anderson Cooper blowing up at President Trump and Ivanka Trump in a way he never would have blown up at Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and in fact did not.
	Nevertheless, the theme of disloyal American Jews from this president continues.
	Ivanka Trump must be very proud of her dad tonight, and you could probably just watch for an Ivanka leak in the coming days about how she tried to talk her father, you know, to change that kind of language.
	It's a classic Ivanka move.
	The president also today executed a move rarely seen in modern-day politics.
	He denied something that he confirmed yesterday, which was then denying what the White House had been denying that very same day.
	It's like a flip-flop flip.
	It's a move rarely seen because it might make voters think the person doing it is either A, unstable, B, not a genius, or C, truly has no idea what they are saying at any given moment or D, all of the above.
	That right there is the bottom line.
	The media are pushing this narrative.
	Now, I think that this narrative is largely unfair when it comes to policy, but Trump cannot play directly into the teeth of that narrative and hope to win a victory.
	The whole goal of politics is to make it very hard to vote for your opponent and very easy to vote for you.
	That is the art of politics.
	To make it very difficult to vote for Hillary Clinton, but make it very easy to vote for Donald Trump.
	You want to knock down all the obstacles to people voting for you.
	That doesn't mean being non-controversial.
	It means being controversial in very specific ways.
	Picking out the flaws of your opponent.
	Pointing those out.
	Making it difficult for people to get over the hump to vote for that person.
	But Trump playing into the teeth of this is a mistake, and it's why Joe Biden continues to lead in the Democratic primaries.
	Joe Biden put out an ad in the last 48 hours, and it is in fact a very good ad from Joe Biden.
	This doesn't mean Joe Biden's a good candidate.
	He is not.
	He is old.
	He is doddering.
	He is unstable.
	He makes mistakes regularly.
	He's basically half alive at this point.
	He's cobbled together.
	Like some sort of bizarre cyborg.
	He he's like the floating head from Futurama.
	I mean, it's it's he's a terrible, terrible candidate, but his entire pitch is, look at me, I'm boring.
	Joe Biden is banking on you'd rather have somebody dead be president than President Trump.
	It's the weekend at Bernie's campaign.
	Just wheel me around and staple that toupee to the top of my head.
	And I'm ready to go, man.
	So Joe Biden's new ad is exactly this.
	Remember the old days when it wasn't this crazy?
	It can be like that again with Joe Biden.
	Here's his ad, ironically entitled Bones, which is a bad name for an ad when you're a thousand years old.
	Here's Biden's ad.
	We know in our bones this election is different.
	The stakes are higher, the threat more serious.
	We have to beat Donald Trump.
	And all the polls agree Joe Biden is the strongest Democrat to do the job.
	No one is more qualified.
	For eight years, President Obama and Vice President Biden were an administration America could be proud of, our allies could trust, and our kids could look up to.
	Together, they worked to save the American economy It goes on like this, right?
	This is a smart tactic from Joe Biden.
	He's stapling himself to Obama's pate leg.
	Now, most Republicans, most conservatives are looking at this and going, this is a pretty sepia toned image of the Obama years.
	I'm not seeing a lot of pictures of Ferguson burning or Baltimore burning, not seeing a lot of pictures of what happened in Dallas with police officers, not seeing the slowest recovery in American history, not seeing us basically in open warfare with many of our key allies, including both Britain as well as Israel.
	Not seeing any of that.
	You're not seeing the Iran nuclear deal anywhere in these ads.
	But this is Biden's pitch.
	And the media are pushing that pitch by portraying Trump as unstable.
	And when Trump, when bad Trump takes precedence over good Trump, that's a big problem.
	It's the reason why Biden is leading.
	It's also the reason why Cory Booker is going nowhere.
	So Cory Booker is now overtly trying to make the case that you shouldn't pick the candidate who's a safe bet.
	He's bound to fail.
	So here is Mr. Potato Head, Cory Booker.
	He brought out his angry eyes to talk about why you shouldn't make Joe Biden the nominee.
	We have never had someone leading in the polls this far out that went on to be the President of the United States.
	Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama are all considered underdogs at this point, but you know what they can do?
	They can speak the American spirit.
	They can excite and energize people.
	They can get crowds on their feet.
	We need a candidate that is not the safe bet.
	We need a candidate that can speak not just to the head, but to the heart and to the gut.
	The heart and the gut.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Me.
	Most mechanized politician in this race.
	You need me.
	Robot Cory.
	I'm a good friend.
	Imaginary T-Bone.
	So yeah, that's not going to work.
	That's not going to work.
	And you're starting to see some of the Democrats actually understand this.
	Senator Bernie Sanders, even today, changed how his Medicare for All plan would work.
	He's now trying to appeal to union workers so that he can overcome Elizabeth Warren's challenge.
	He announced a key change to his Medicare for All insurance plan on Wednesday, a move meant to assuage fears on the part of organized labor, whose support is being heatedly sought by all of the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.
	Labor representatives had told Sanders his Medicare for All plan was killing their Cadillac plans.
	So naturally, Bernie is now going to exempt those plans.
	The change would effectively give organized labor more negotiating power than other consumers who would have under his plans.
	They get special treatment by forcing employers to pay out any money they save to union members and other benefits.
	So in other words, if companies have a union and taxpayer dollars now cover Medicare for all, the money over and above that which they are paying in taxes that would have gone to the union members in Cadillac benefits now must be paid through other forms to the union members.
	So he's going to give special goodies to the union members.
	And Democrats are now starting to make compromises with their key principles in order to be seen as the safe choice.
	And what does this suggest?
	It suggests that President Trump needs to find a way to avoid being seen as the bat bleep loony guy out there in the race.
	Because the fact is that Democrats are the ones who are promoting an agenda that is crazy.
	I mean, their agenda's crazy.
	They're promoting an abortion-on-demand, open borders agenda.
	They're promoting an agenda that would slash America's military to the bone again.
	They're proposing an agenda that would significantly hamper the growth of America's economy in the name of a non-negotiated climate deal that would not effectively lower the possibility of climate change over the course of the next century, because America's only responsible about 15% of the world's global carbon emissions.
	Democrats' plans are not workable.
	They're not workable.
	And this is why I say, if Trump were smart, what he would do is just point at them.
	Like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
	He would just stand there and point at them.
	That's all.
	He cannot appear to be the volatile character in this race because if it's a referendum on Trump's volatility, he's going to lose.
	If this is a referendum on democratic policy, which is in and of itself unstable and volatile, then Trump has a serious shot at victory.
	OK, meanwhile, we do have to pay a fond farewell to Jay Inslee.
	Breaking news, Jay Inslee was running for president of the United States.
	Not anymore.
	He has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race.
	He's going to run for governor of Washington again.
	His immediate family were the first to know, and also the only people to know, because nobody knew that Jay Inslee was running in the first place.
	He just kept showing up and shouting about climate change over and over.
	Jay Inslee is one of America's key heroes.
	We bid him a fond farewell by playing his theme music.
	Do we have that?
	Ah, Jay Inslee.
	Goodbye, Jay Inslee, who never pulled above 1%.
	But I love how the New York Times covers this.
	Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, who mounted a dogged presidential candidacy, raised the alarm about climate change, dropped out of the 2020 race Wednesday after struggling to earn a place in the next Democratic primary debate.
	Only the New York Times would describe a campaign that failed to garner 1% approval rating.
	Dogged.
	Like, I don't remember them calling Marco Rubio's campaign dogged.
	Do you?
	Mr. Inslee plans to compete for a different office instead.
	He's already running for a third term as governor in 2020 in Washington state, even as Seattle declines into horror and irrelevance.
	While his presidential campaign had advanced the dialogue on climate change, Mr. Inslee said, he had concluded that the electoral obstacles before him were insurmountable.
	Inslee said in an interview Wednesday night on MSNBC, I'm not going to be the president, so I'm withdrawing tonight from the race.
	To the great consternation of no one.
	He said he's not going to endorse any other Democrat.
	Yeah, I'm sure that the Democrats are just clamoring for the Jay Inslee endorsement.
	Basically, he wants to be Secretary of the Interior.
	The announcement came only hours after Inslee released the sixth and final part of a climate plan that ballooned to about 200 pages.
	Can't imagine why he didn't pick up support.
	I'm going to help all the other candidates raise their level of ambition on this, Inslee said, adding, we need all of them to raise their game.
	Inslee was 68 years old.
	Was there is there like a Democrat running who's not Beto O'Rourke, who is under the age of 93?
	When will the baby boomers just stop running?
	I feel like that would be a good idea.
	Like Jay Inslee was the young he was the young buck in this race.
	He was the young guy in this race.
	It is incredible to me that these Democratic candidates are so old.
	It really is amazing.
	It's an amazing, amazing thing.
	And it speaks to a party that is rapidly running out of ideas in a very, very serious way.
	Meanwhile, I do have to make a quick note here.
	I think that Elizabeth Warren is multiplying.
	And it's scaring me.
	So, yesterday, CNN reported that an Elizabeth Warren doppelganger showed up to one of her events.
	And the picture is quite frightening.
	I literally do not know which one of these women is Elizabeth Warren.
	They look exactly the same.
	They have the same haircut.
	They have the same glasses.
	They have the same outfit.
	It's creepy as all hell here with CNN reporting.
	Meeting her doppelganger is one thing Elizabeth Warren didn't have a plan for.
	This is just like being here with family.
	Yeah, you're twin.
	Stephanie Oyen has dressed up as Elizabeth Warren for Halloween.
	So when she got ready to attend Warren's Minnesota rally... I thought I would just put on the blazer and go to the rally and get a couple little giggles.
	But instead of giggles... People just started turning, oh my God, it's Warren, it's Warren.
	It was really touching to see the number of people who had tears in their eyes.
	They had said things like, you're my hero.
	I felt terrible having to tell them that I wasn't the real Elizabeth Warren.
	Well, I mean, we don't need more than one.
	Like, really, please.
	In fact, we don't even need one in the presidential race.
	Please, please stop.
	The Elizabeth Warren spawning problem must stop.
	It's like spores.
	It's just multiplying.
	Like, this cannot continue.
	If all of Iowa becomes Elizabeth Warren's, That you can only stand so many women in the local HOA meeting, scolding you about painting your front window sill.
	There are only so many people like that you can stand in a particular radius.
	And Elizabeth Warren is, every one of those people is Elizabeth Warren.
	Elizabeth Warren is the scold from your HOA.
	We can only have so many of those people in a particular radius before the entire earth implodes.
	That was, that was, this is basically turning into a horror story.
	I mean, this presidential race.
	I don't say.
	It's become too frightening for me.
	Okay, time for a thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate.
	So, thing that I like today.
	So, I just want to talk about this event that we had last night.
	So, Daily Wire backstage last night.
	Believe it or not, it was a really good event.
	I know I was talking it down.
	I know I sounded unenthusiastic about being there, mainly because I was, but still, it was pretty fun.
	About 3,000 people showed up to hear Michael Knoll's jabber, nonsensically.
	And it was pretty great.
	Now, the only downside was that it ended really late.
	It ended like 11 o'clock at night.
	And people were literally falling asleep on the roads.
	My security that drove me said that he spotted two separate people who had fallen asleep on the road last night.
	And this reminded me of a story.
	So it's time for a brief story.
	I rarely do story time, but this reminded me of a story.
	And I feel like this story deserves to be told.
	Because it speaks to the inefficacy of California state government.
	So, several years ago, I was driving back from Sacramento to Los Angeles.
	My wife's family is from the Sacramento area.
	We're driving back from Sacramento to Los Angeles, and I was in the car with my wife and my sister-in-law and my brother-in-law.
	We're taking their car.
	We're driving back.
	There is no air conditioning in the car.
	It is the middle of summer.
	It is one o'clock in the morning, and the radio is broken.
	So I can't even listen to music.
	We get down close to Los Angeles on the I-5, just getting off the Grapevine, and suddenly the traffic comes to a dead halt.
	And I mean a dead stop for an hour and a half.
	Everybody in the car is asleep, really enjoying themselves.
	I'm sitting behind the wheel, white knuckling it, moving six inches forward every 15 minutes or so.
	It's really a wonderful, wonderful experience.
	And after about an hour and a half of this, finally the traffic starts to move again.
	And as we move forward in the traffic, I look to see what is the crucial piece of work that had to be done at 1.30 in the morning that prevented me from getting to sleep until 3.30.
	And we start moving and I see that they've blocked off three of the four lanes and nothing is happening.
	There are no machines.
	There are no people.
	They blocked it off presumably so that they could check a box and then tell people they'd been doing work because no work had been done.
	By this point, I was so frustrated and tired and angry that I rolled down my window and as we rolled forward, I reached out of the car and I picked up a traffic cone and I dumped it in my wife's lap.
	And my wife wakes up with a giant orange traffic cone in her lap.
	And she turns to me and she says, what the hell is this?
	And I said, I paid taxes in this state and I get nothing back except I get to sit in traffic for an hour and a half.
	This cone is mine.
	I paid for this cone.
	That cone sits on our property to this day.
	We've had that cone for seven years.
	We've moved three times in seven years.
	That cone has always come with me because that's the only thing I've ever gotten from the state government of California, apparently.
	So, I don't know why I decided to tell that story, but I hope you enjoyed it as much as I didn't.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	By the way, that is, I believe, my only criminal.
	Oh, well.
	No, I have a very, very bad traffic ticket.
	I've talked about it on the program before.
	I got caught doing well over 100 miles an hour.
	Had my license suspended.
	Those were my bad boy days, cruising around the i5 in my Honda Civic.
	In any case, quick thing that I hate.
	So, Matt Iglesias, the Ralph Wiggum of the internet, had a real take.
	About weddings the other day.
	Now, I will admit, as a man, I don't care about weddings.
	I really don't.
	Like, I would have been fine marrying my wife civilly and religiously and doing it in, like, a small room and then having, like, a cake and going home and watching TV.
	Like, that would have been fine.
	But women dream of the big weddings.
	And so, gentlemen in the audience, if you're getting married, stop trying to negotiate with your wife what the wedding is going to be like.
	Stop it.
	It's her day.
	It's not your day.
	Stop moaning about it.
	You're being a pansy.
	Stop it.
	Okay.
	I generally agree with the idea that you shouldn't spend $75,000, $100,000 on a wedding.
	Take that, put it on a down payment for a house, spend $10,000 on a wedding, do something perfectly serviceable at the local Holiday Inn Express, and it'll be fine.
	But, Matthew Iglesias has a different take.
	Because, again, he's the Ralph Wiggum of the internet.
	He says the government should try to do something.
	The government should try to do something to discourage expensive weddings and wedding related activities, which seems to cause a lot of stress in people's finances and interpersonal relationships and probably discourage people from getting married.
	We'd be way better off with the norm of cheaper weddings and the money repurposed for family vacations down the road.
	OK, I may agree with that last part.
	And I may agree that you put the money on a down payment.
	But I love that Matt Iglesias' first move always is the government should do something about it.
	You know, women who want to have nice weddings, the government should jail you probably.
	I feel like the government should punish you if you want to spend money on a nice wedding.
	Because the government knows better than you how you should get married.
	After all, isn't the government famous for promoting marriage by completely destroying the institution over the last 50 years?
	Man, this is the problem with so many folks on the left.
	They see something and they get angry at it and they're like, you know what would be an awesome thing?
	If we had a giant group of people paid for with tax dollars who could point a gun at somebody and make them do what I want.
	If you don't think that this is a sort of fascistic mindset that the government is supposed to cram down particular understandings of how you do weddings, I don't know what to tell you.
	If you want the government dictating how you ought to do your wedding, Man, don't live in America because that is not what this country was built for.
	All right.
	We'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	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 Sajovic.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

▲