All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 23, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:39
Feelings Don’t Care About Your Facts | Ep. 846
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Major left-leaning cities push a bevy of insanely backwards policies, the White House prepares for the G7, and Bernie Sanders wants to spend all of your money.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
We have a lot to get to today.
The late breaking news right before the show is the passing of David Koch.
He's the conservative billionaire.
Obviously, he's become this bugaboo to the left, but that's because the left doesn't understand who David Koch was.
And if you watch the response on Twitter, Twitter is just the worst place on earth.
It is just a garbage heap of humanity.
It's horrible, horrible, horrible.
If you read the tweets, You're looking at reporters, like Matthew Chapman from Raw Story, saying the definitive top 10 list of modern people who have done the most damage to America.
Rupert Murdoch, Mitch McConnell, Charles Koch, David Koch.
And then you get the tweet of God, which is this popular stupid parody account, 6 million followers, saying RIP David Koch.
That's a request to Satan.
Rip him.
And Michael Ian Black tweeted out, in lieu of flowers, the family of David Koch requests that Mourner simply purchase a Republican politician.
I mean, this is just disgusting.
It's disgusting.
I mean, Twitter is an awful, awful place.
David Roth, who is a reporter, supposedly, at Deadspin, which is a ridiculous website owned by Ted Cruz.
He tweeted out, David Koch had a dream, which was to make things easier for himself and a few friends, while also making things significantly worse for everyone else on the planet.
He is gone.
But now that work falls to all of us.
Today, whenever you get a chance, harm someone vulnerable.
I mean, this is the the way that the left treats the death of a man who gave hundreds of millions of dollars in charity to many of the institutions they like.
And they don't know anything about David Koch.
All they know is that he's a bugaboo.
All they know is that David Koch is mean because he gave a lot of money to Republican politicians.
Doesn't matter that he didn't support Trump in 2016.
All that matters is that David Koch was a Republican, and all Republicans are bad.
And then you wonder how you got Trump, guys?
It's because it doesn't matter what the belief system is of anyone with an R next to their name.
So long as there's an R next to their name, they are the face and root of all evil.
We saw this when John McCain died, too.
There were people on the left talking about the evils of John McCain, who was a very moderate Republican.
Well, David Koch passes away at the age of 79.
And it no longer matters that David Koch ended, that he had given an enormous amount of money to all sorts of various non-partisan enterprises.
He was a major benefactor of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
At Dan's Focus Theater at Lincoln Center bears his name.
He gave $100 million to the Lincoln Center.
Last year, Koch Industry said that Koch's donations and pledges to philanthropic organizations had topped $1.3 billion.
It's not money that he was sucking out of somebody else's pocket via the courtesy of government.
That was money that he was spending out of his own pocket on charitable causes.
But he's very, very bad.
Now, you would think from all of this that David Koch was some rabid right-winger.
David Koch was a libertarian, guys.
David Koch was an early supporter of same-sex marriage.
David Koch, to the end of his life, was not pro-life.
That does not matter.
So long as David Koch gave money to Republican causes and free market causes, he was evil.
And understand that this is how a lot of the Democratic left feels about anybody who spends any money in pursuit of politics, who spends any time pushing right-wing, meaning libertarian, causes.
Anybody who pushes for limited government and free markets is a bad guy.
I mean, this is how it is headlined at CNN.
David Koch, billionaire businessman and influential GOP donor, dies.
And the entire beginning of the article doesn't really talk about his company, which is responsible for the employment of a full 120,000 people in the United States.
Bernie Sanders is good.
He's never employed a human being that he has paid for himself.
Not one.
It's all been paid for by taxpayer dollars, but he's good.
The essence of good On the far left, is that if you work at the expense of taxpayer dollars, and you never create anything, you are good.
If you are David Koch, and you're responsible for the creation of a huge company, and you hire 120,000 people, and you give 1.3 billion dollars in charity, including an enormous amount of charity, to non-partisan excellent causes, like the arts and fighting cancer, then you are evil, because you also gave money to Republican causes.
I honestly do not know how we can continue to have a republic when people like David Koch are demonized by the left.
Now, a lot of them are saying, well, you know, he was in the gas industry.
Ooh, well, he was in the gas industry.
Yeah, you know what else?
A lot of people are in the gas industry.
You want all of them out of work?
David Koch, again, was an important voice in the political debate, but he was not the rabid right-wing crazy that so many on the left paint him to be.
Here's CNN reporting.
Here's CNN reporting In some elections, the Koch network rivaled the spending and scope of the National Republican Party.
Analysts view their activism as helping to have fueled the Tea Party movement.
Ooh, a movement that called for smaller government.
Ooh, so terrible.
Coke was most active in Americans for Prosperity, the grassroots arm of the Coke's sprawling network, which built a coalition of more than three million activists to push the agenda of the Cokes and the roughly 700 like-minded donors to help fund their public policy work.
I love it whenever people on the left suggest that a campaign donation is so that they will push the agenda of the person donating, as though politics is a simple art of bribery.
Okay, well then unions who donate to politicians are bribing the politicians.
Tom Steyer is bribing politicians.
George Soros, yes George Soros, is bribing politicians.
If this is your logic, if your logic is that if you give money to a politician who supports the agenda that you also support, that you are therefore bribing the politician, then all campaign donations are bribery and that would include Democratic billionaires.
In the era of President Donald Trump, the network has undergone a significant shift in focus, upping its commitment to work across party lines on top priorities like free trade and creating a path to permanent legal status for undocumented immigrants.
Again, they're libertarian.
They're very, very soft on illegal immigration.
In June, Americans for Prosperity announced four new political action committees and said it would wade into primaries to help incumbent politicians, including Democrats, who side with Koch on trade, immigration, and other issues.
Obviously, David Koch was supremely evil, according to the left, because he was rich, and because they gave lots of money, and because they were Republicans.
The treatment of the Koch brothers was shoddy during their lifetime, and it's shoddy after his death, so that is not a major shock.
Okay, meanwhile...
In other news, America's major cities, governed by the Democratic left, happen to suck.
I mean, they are just, the living conditions are getting worse and worse in America's major cities.
And that is because of stupid policies being pursued out of feeling, but not out of actual sympathy for taxpayers or for rule of law.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you're going to lose weight and get in shape.
Now, I'm somebody who works out nearly every day.
I try to watch my diet still, I was having a tough time taking off those final five pounds, and then I started using Noom.
The reason that Noom works is because Noom isn't just about, okay, here's what you should eat, and now you should eat.
It's about changing a way of life.
It's a psychological approach to weight loss and getting in shape.
And you can set your specific goals that you want to achieve with Noom, not just losing weight.
You can set goals of how much weight you want to lose, but also how much exercise you want to do.
They set up systems so that you can talk with other people who are pursuing the same goals that you are.
Noom is a habit-changing solution.
That really is the key.
They want to change your habits.
It helps users learn to develop a new relationship with food through personalized courses.
Based in psychology, Noom teaches you why you do the things you do and arms you with the tools to break the bad habits and replace them with better ones.
Noom isn't a diet.
It's a healthy, easy-to-stick-to way of life.
You don't have to change it all in one day.
Small steps make big progress.
Sign up for your trial today at Noom.
N-O-O-M dot com slash Shapiro.
That's Noom dot com slash Shapiro to start your trial today.
Noom dot com slash Shapiro.
It is the last weight loss program you'll need because then it ain't weight loss and it's just maintaining your habits.
Noom dot com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
It really is fantastic.
Alrighty, so.
As I say, America's major cities governed almost solely by Democrats are doing an amazing job of making what used to be nice cities into worse places.
So this week, Texas has joined the national battle over the urban homeless crisis.
The city of Austin has now made it legal to sleep on the street.
I can't imagine they're going to have an increased homeless problem in the city of Austin like we have here in the city of Los Angeles.
According to the Washington Post, Christopher Paula hasn't felt a police officer tapping at his foot in more than a month.
The tap tap tap that usually meant he was about to get another citation that he was never going to pay.
Living on the streets for five years after he lost his graphic design job, Paul has been having undisturbed nights since the city council and mayor eased restrictions on public camping this summer, a move that liberal lawmakers build as a humane and pragmatic reform of the criminal justice system.
But the change has drawn the ire of Republicans and local business owners who decry it as a threat to public safety and the local economy, exposing a partisan clash over how to manage poverty and affordable housing in America's cities.
Yes, because it turns out that your feelings of sympathy for the homeless are in direct contravention of public order and rule of law.
Allowing people to sleep in public, on streets, outside businesses, drives down the ability of businesses to do their job, which drives down the taxpayer dollars that you need to fund the city.
It makes the cities dirtier.
It makes the cities more difficult to manage in terms of both crime and in terms of disease.
We have seen it here in Los Angeles, in Seattle, in San Francisco.
Austin has their public camping ban relaxed.
According to Christopher Paul, this homeless person, who again has been homeless for five years since losing his graphic design job.
He couldn't find any other job.
He was working in graphic design.
There are no jobs anywhere in the country for a guy who is doing graphic design for five years.
Somehow I find this a little bit hard to believe.
We have a 3.7% unemployment rate in this country.
There is nothing law-abiding about loitering and trespassing on public property.
Nothing.
This is not about lack of sympathy for somebody who is homeless, particularly in the short term.
But when you decide to make the decision to live on the street for five years when there are homeless shelters available in a bevy of cities, when you are in fact living on the street with all of your crap, presumably you are defecating in public because where else would you do it?
My sympathy is with the taxpayers.
My sympathy is with the businesses.
My sympathy is with the law abiding in that community.
Paul says people can sleep better in the open.
They're a lot safer than somewhere hiding in a back alley.
He estimates that he has received 20 citations for illegal camping before the rule went into effect on July 1st.
But as Paul, 50, sprawled out shirtless on the sidewalk on a 100-degree day, shop owner Craig Staley stood a few feet away on Congress Avenue reconsidering his party affiliation.
Staley said, I got two emails last month from customers who said, I can't go to your store anymore because it smells like urine.
I'm a Democrat at heart.
I've been in Austin, Texas for over 30 years.
But I'm telling you, I'm feeling a lot more red these days when it comes to my business.
Yeah, no bleep.
It turns out everybody is sympathetic to the homeless until they start peeing on your front doorstep.
There is nothing law-abiding or decent for the city, or by the way, decent for people who, a large, a large plurality or majority of people who are homeless suffer from severe mental illness or drug addiction.
It is not sympathetic to leave someone severely schizophrenic on the street talking to themselves, living in their own filth.
I don't know how that is deemed to be sympathetic.
With an estimated 2,200 homeless adults sleeping on sidewalks and in makeshift tent cities, Austin has become the latest flashpoint in the national debate over whether homeless residents have a constitutional right to sleep on public streets, particularly in cities grappling with overcrowded shelters.
Yes, I'm sure this is what the founders meant.
They meant that you have the freedom to sleep right in front of somebody else's business and pee on their doorstep.
I am sure that that is exactly what the founders meant.
Constitutional right to sleep in public.
Sure.
The city of Boise, Idaho What absolute crap?
Unconstitutional?
To criminalize public sleeping?
Really?
So if there are insufficient public restrooms, let's say the restroom is full one day, can I just crap in the open?
Because apparently, according to the same logic, I should be able to.
Unconstitutional when there is inadequate shelter space.
What absolute crap?
Unconstitutional to criminalize public sleeping?
Really?
So if there are insufficient public restrooms, let's say the restroom is full one day, can I just crap in the open?
Because apparently, according to the same logic, I should be able to.
After all, the toilet is occupied and I gotta go.
Meanwhile, my favorite thing about left-leaning media coverage is whenever Democrats push a really garbage policy, the story is Republicans pouncing.
So here it is, according to the Washington Post.
Meanwhile, Republicans have made the nation's growing homeless population a political weapon, characterizing it as a failure of liberal policies.
Yeah, you know why?
Because it is a failure of liberal policies.
I've been in LA my entire life.
The city was not always like this.
Every single bench in the city of Los Angeles is now occupied by a homeless person.
That is a public safety threat.
A lot of these people have criminal backgrounds.
Not all of them.
Many of them.
Many of them are schizophrenic.
Many of them have severe mental illness.
A huge number of them are drug addicts.
You think that's safe for a city?
You think that is great for the public life of a city?
It is not sympathetic to the homeless?
It is not sympathetic to the people who have to live in the community around the homeless?
This is it's really bad policy.
And again, it is sympathy for one particular group of people overtaking a policy that actually makes a city better for everyone.
Everybody was all over Rudy Giuliani in the 90s and early 2000s when he was cleaning up the homeless problem in New York, except that he helped turn New York and the center of New York, particularly from one of the worst, seediest places in America into one of the best.
President Trump said at a Cincinnati rally this month, look at L.A.
with the tents and the horrible, horrible conditions.
Look at San Francisco.
Look at some of your other cities.
California Governor Gavin Newsom said that Democratic policies have fueled the economic resurgence of U.S.
cities that has caused a short-term increase in homelessness.
Wait, so he's going to have to explain.
According to the Democrats, the reason there's a homelessness crisis is because people are too poor to afford housing.
And yet apparently, according to Gavin Newsom, it is a burgeoning, booming economy in Democratic areas that is causing the homeless problem.
So which is it?
California is home to nearly half of the nation's homeless people who do not use shelters, which suggests a lot of people are coming from other states and camping out in L.A.
cities, in California cities.
Why?
Because the weather's good, and because they know they're not going to be moved, and because the ACLU has prevented the police from removing bags of crap on L.A.
sidewalks.
In L.A., you're apparently allowed to sleep in your car as long as possible.
Newsom said, we don't need the president's megaphone to tell us that we have challenges.
Adding that California is spending $1.7 billion to address housing affordability.
Again, this is the same state that is about to implement a totalitarian rent control statute that basically makes it impossible for developers to create new units.
In Austin, Governor Greg Abbott has threatened to push the GOP-dominated Texas legislature to pass a law overriding Austin's public camping action, which is what should happen.
Matt Mikoviak, chairman of the county party in Travis County.
He says they thought it would be compassionate and not a big deal.
But it has been an absolute disaster for the city.
This is our best example of overreach.
So we've been strategically focusing on this issue.
But the Austin mayor, a Democrat, he says, when you move these people, they don't disappear.
They just go somewhere else.
Yes, that's true.
They go not outside businesses and they don't drive down the tax base and provide a public safety hazard in different areas of the city.
Now, obviously, that doesn't mean you should shuttle them into low-income areas, which is the other solution you've seen from Democrats in these cities.
He says the real answer is not just moving people from there to over and back again.
The real answer is giving them the services they need.
Oh, really?
Because as it turns out, the city of Seattle has what they literally call the drunk dorms.
Where they do not have restrictions on people getting drunk or using drugs in these affordable housing units.
And these places have turned into festering centers for crime and drug use, which is not a particular shock.
Previously, the city prohibited sitting or lying down on public sidewalks or sleeping outdoors in downtown Austin.
Between 2014 and 2016, Austin police issued 18,000 citations for rule violations.
But those cited didn't show up for court 90% of the time.
Yes, but the point is that you don't want people feeling the ability to settle down on the sidewalk as a permanent housing solution.
As we'll see, the city of Los Angeles has been backing off of its own stupid policies on this sort of stuff.
Because even Democrats are realizing this is bad policy.
After a while, facts get in the way of feelings, as I am fond of saying.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
Let's talk about the necessity of putting together a trust or a will.
The fact is, there are a lot of politicians who basically want to steal your money after you die.
The estate tax is a way of stealing your money.
Yes, you already paid taxes on all the money in your estate, and you want to pass it on to your relatives.
Well, now the government would like to steal more and more and more of that, which is why you really need to set up a living will, you need to set up a trust, and right now is actually the perfect time to do it during National Make-A-Will Month at LegalZoom.
For more than 18 years, LegalZoom has developed a straightforward way for you to protect what you care about most, your family and the assets that would go to them.
This all starts with a last will or a living trust estate plan.
If that sounds confusing, don't worry.
LegalZoom can help you out.
They have a ton of online resources for you to figure out what's right for you.
If that's not enough, their network of independent attorneys can provide advice if you need more direction.
LegalZoom is not a law firm, so you won't be billed by the hour.
It's easy to fit what you need to get done into your busy schedule.
Join over 1 million people who have counted on LegalZoom for a will or a living trust before another summer passes by.
Again, trusts, well, these are really important documents and you can get them done pretty easily over at LegalZoom.com.
It's National Maker Will Month at LegalZoom.com for special savings.
Be sure to enter promo code Ben in the referral box at checkout.
That is code Ben for special savings only at LegalZoom.com where life meets legal.
Go check them out right now.
So as I say, L.A.
was a leader in the let's-just-let-the-homeless-take-over-the-city movement.
And now they're backing off of it.
Shock.
Because it turns out taxpayers not particularly happy when you walk outside your front door and there's some dude shooting heroin into his foot.
L.A.' 's City Council Homelessness and Poverty Committee on Wednesday, according to LAS.com, recommended repealing a controversial ordinance prohibiting homeless people from sitting or sleeping on sidewalks.
The committee wants City Council to replace the law with one that is more narrowly tailored and compliant with a recent federal court decision.
The ordinance, Municipal Code Section 4118, known in homeless advocacy circles as the Sit-Lie Law, makes it a criminal offense to sit, lie, or sleep on a public sidewalk anywhere in the city.
The law was the subject of a major lawsuit, Jones v.
L.A., which was settled in 2007.
Right now, the city can only enforce the law under limited circumstances.
The proposed replacement law lays out a lengthy list of circumstances and conditions under which occupying a sidewalk would be banned.
These include within 500 feet of parks and schools and within 10 feet of a driveway or building entrance.
Yes, this will certainly solve the problem.
So we will shuttle people over five feet and that'll definitely fix it.
Committee members and city attorney's offices are recommending the change in order to align LA's municipal code with the 2018 federal court ruling that limits how cities can enforce anti-camping and anti-loitering laws.
In that case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Boise law that outlawed sleeping in any public space in that city.
The judge in that case, because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is an awful, terrible, horrible legal institution, wrote, As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.
Well, yes, as long as there is freedom to travel in the United States, you do have a choice as to where you choose to live.
The city in that case had no shelter beds indoors.
It is not the city's duty.
It really is not.
It is not the city's duty to provide a bed for everybody in the city.
That is not the way the Constitution of the United States works.
I mean, really.
So now the idea is that if the city doesn't pay for your car, then you have a right to ride the bus for free.
You have a right to ride the bus for free.
That's how this works now.
If the city doesn't pay for something that you want, then you get to just take advantage of city services and violate the law in doing so.
The LA Council law that is currently on the books is virtually identical to the Boise law, but it has not been enforced.
There are more than 27,000 people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the city of L.A.
at any given time.
There are about 8,100 shelter beds.
More than half of those beds are reserved for families with children.
Thousands of people are living on the sidewalks.
So here's the list of proposed restrictions.
Within 10 feet of a driveway or building entrance.
But other than that, I guess you're fine.
So if you just sleep within 11 feet, you're fine.
Within 500 feet of a park, school, or daycare center.
Because that'll certainly solve the problem.
Being 500 feet away, having a homeless encampment 500 feet away from the entrance of a kindergarten is fantastic.
On bike paths, tunnels, bridges, pedestrian subways that is on city designated school routes.
On public land with posted no trespassing signs and public crowded sidewalk areas.
The proposed law would make it illegal to follow or speak to a person in a manner that could cause them to fear for their safety or property, or to intimidate a person into giving money, or cause them to respond immediately with a violent reaction because of the inherent nature of the perceived harm.
Naturally, homeless advocates are calling this inhumane.
Our cities are turning into trash heaps, and this is democratic policy all the way through.
How stupid, by the way, is the democratic policy getting?
San Francisco is introducing a new law.
You ready for this?
They want to change the law so that the law does not contain the words offender or addict.
And they also want to change the phrase convicted felon to justice involved person.
Justice involved person.
So you get out of jail after 11 years for a second degree murder or something.
You are now a justice-involved person.
Just like a lawyer is a justice-involved person.
You're a justice-involved person.
The Board of Supervisors adopted the changes last month, even as the city reels from one of the highest crime rates in the country and staggering inequality exemplified by pervasive homelessness alongside Silicon Valley wealth.
The local officials say the new language will help change people's views about those who commit crime.
Yeah, I'm sure that's right.
Now that you said it, that rapist who is a justice-involved person, I think of him not anymore as a convicted rapist.
Now I think of him as just a person who is unfortunately and against his will involved in the criminal justice system.
It's unreal.
It's unreal.
These policies don't work.
They're specifically designed at covering over the failure of democratic policies.
And I love how the media cover this stuff.
The New York Times has a story today about education in the city of New York.
City school test scores inch up, but less than half of students pass.
Whoopsie doodle, turns out that education in the city of New York, where they spend enormous resources, only 46% of the city's third through eighth graders pass the state math exam.
A three percentage point increase from last year.
Only 47% of students pass the English exam.
Everything is going great in Democrat governed cities.
It's all wonderful.
You can't focus on any of the underlying problems.
You can't focus on the mental health problem.
You can't focus on the drug addiction problem.
When it comes to homelessness, you can't focus on the problem of single parent families who have to split their attention between work and making sure their kid has help with their homework.
You can't focus on any of the underlying problems.
Instead, we just say that criminals are justice-involved persons.
We say that homeless people are not homeless, they're just unsheltered.
And we suggest that educational failures are the result of not spending enough money on education.
How wonderful.
How wonderful.
And this is how you get to, by the way, a democratic party that has now fully embraced the idea that the only measure of sympathy is how much money you spend on crap.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First...
Let's talk about dressing well.
So, let's say that you don't want to look like a schlub anymore.
You're sick of going down to the local department store and picking a suit off the rack, and it hangs off of you like a pair of drapes.
And now, instead, you should head on over to Indochino.
Great suits are worth it.
You're gonna wear it a lot, and if it's tailored to you, you look like a million bucks.
This is where Indochino comes in.
Indochino makes suits and shirts to your exact measurements.
Their Indochino suit is made for you.
They have attention to detail that beats any department store.
If you're in the middle of planning a wedding, they have tons of options for people looking to outfit their wedding party.
So here's how it works.
You can visit one of their showrooms.
Indochino has over 40 showrooms in North America.
A stylist will take your measurements personally.
Or you can measure at home and shop online at Indochino.com.
So I actually went to one of their showrooms.
It really is fun.
You feel like you're on Savile Row.
It's pretty awesome.
And if you do it online, it's the same sort of deal.
You can choose your fabric inside and out.
You can choose the lapel, the lining, the buttons.
You can write your own monogram so you look like a Bond villain.
Indochino professionally tailors your suit and mails it to you in a couple of weeks.
This week, my listeners can get any premium Indochino suit for just $369 at Indochino.com when you enter Shapiro at checkout.
Plus, shipping is free.
That's Indochino.com promo code Shapiro for any premium suit, just $369 plus free shipping.
It's a fantastic deal for a premium made-to-measure suit.
Once you go custom, you're not going to want to go back.
Go check them out at Indochino.com.
I've gotten Indochinos, it's pretty fabulous.
Go check them out.
Okay, so as I say, Democrats, because feelings matter more than facts, because they don't care if the city of Los Angeles is overrun so long as they can pat themselves on the back for their sympathy for the homeless, while the city declines, while the tax base flees, while people move out increasingly to the suburbs to get away from the center of major cities that are rotting out in the core.
At the same time, Democrats are patting themselves on the back because they spend lots of money.
Because money that you spend from somebody else, not David Koch, who spent his own money on charity.
If they spend your money, this demonstrates how committed they are to a cause.
Case in point today, Bernie Sanders has now promoted a $16.3 trillion climate plan on Thursday.
No!
Bernie Sanders, a socialist?
envisions a significant expansion of the government's role in the economy.
No. Bernie Sanders, a socialist?
No.
He would offer billions in subsidies to replace gas-guzzling vehicles with electric ones by 2030, a new public system of clean electricity generation that could sideline private utilities, and an infrastructure program that would remake much of the economy and employ an estimated 20 million more Americans.
This is one of the beautiful things.
This is one of the beautiful things about being a Democrat.
You can just say stuff like, I'm gonna spend one gajillion dollars and it will create 20 gajillion jobs.
And people are like, how?
It just will, man.
Remember when Barack Obama was talking about shovel-ready jobs that didn't materialize?
And then he was talking about green jobs that didn't materialize?
And now Bernie Sanders is doing the same thing and the media's like, oh!
The sheer scale of the effort, which the Independent from Vermont compares to FDR's 1940s mobilization to fight World War II, was central to his message in rolling out the plan.
It's a feature, not a bug, that it's going to destroy the American economy and force us to spend trillions.
Because after all, we can measure your sympathy in dollars.
Not your own dollars.
In the number of dollars that you wish to take out of somebody else's pocket.
It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.
Now, this does result in a great irony, which is that when Bernie Sanders is called on it, he's got nothing.
So listen to these two clips.
It's pretty funny.
He was at a town hall event yesterday, and he's talking about how we have to transition away from fossil fuels, which, if you are worried about climate change, then you do want a transition away from fossil fuels over the course of time.
There is no way to do it right now.
The technology is simply not sophisticated enough.
There are certain things that you can do, like we should explore geoengineering, building more infrastructure to prevent against rising sea levels, right?
Building seawalls.
There are certain things you can do for mitigation.
There are certain things you can do to heighten adaptation, maybe making it easier for people to move from particular low-lying areas as sea levels rise, for example.
And then there is stuff that you can do to actually mitigate climate change itself.
Some of that involves shooting Sulfur into the air has been explored.
This is geoengineering.
There's also talk about technological innovation.
And it's always funny to me when people say we have to subsidize technological innovation.
OK, well, you know who the person who wins the race to create an alternative energy source that is even nearly as efficient as carbon emissions?
You know what their reward is?
All the monies.
All of them.
If you are the person who discovers nuclear fusion, that does not require the heat of the sun, if you are the person who discovers that and makes it cost-effective on a small scale, then you are going to be the wealthiest person in the history of humanity.
So that's a pretty good incentive.
Nonetheless, Bernie Sanders says we have to transition now.
Now we have no choice.
Right this very instant.
It is no secret that we must transition away from fossil fuel.
Period.
End of discussion.
There ain't no middle grounds here.
Right.
There is no middle ground.
There's no middle ground!
Okay, so somebody gets up and they say, well, so there's no middle ground.
Why are you driving a car?
And Bernie's got nothing.
You seem adamant about climate change, of course.
So what ways would you take to practice what you preach if you were to become president?
Because I know it's stressful and you have to travel a lot, and you have to use fossil fuels.
No, I'm not going to walk to California.
Look, I understand that.
We do the best we can as an example, but I'm not going to sit here and tell you that we're not going to use fossil fuels.
Oh, oh, well, oh, well.
But I thought we have no choice.
There's no middle ground.
I cannot give you any one, even one specific way in which I am reducing my carbon footprint.
But it is a war and we must do something right.
This is the beautiful thing about being on the left.
It's a war against poverty, but I'm not going to spend my money on it.
I'm going to spend somebody else's money on it.
It's a war against climate change.
But I am going to continue to fly my private jet to Iowa and out of Iowa.
And again, sympathy can be measured according to Democrats in how many dollars from somebody else's pocket you spend.
So you get Bernie saying this.
People are telling me, Bernie, the plan you just released to combat climate change is expensive.
And you know what?
They're right.
It is expensive.
But the cost of doing nothing is far more expensive.
Yes, this is always the easy thing to say, right?
The cost of doing nothing, it turns out, until you reach about 2.5 degrees Celsius in global climate change?
Actually, the cost of doing nothing is less expensive.
William Nordhaus, the Nobel Prize winner in economics last year, has an entire book I've recommended on the show called Climate Casino.
He does not reject climate change.
He does not reject that the climate is changing.
And he actually believes in a carbon tax.
But even Nordhaus says, yeah, there actually is an economic tipping point at which it is not worth it to actually invest in stopping climate change below a certain point.
So Bernie Sanders is just full of it.
But again, it's about people's intentions in politics these days.
It's not About their actual, their actual activity.
This is how you, but here's what's hilarious about this.
The DNC recognizes that this is an argument for a very, like, that the worst thing they can do is pitch their climate change plans in public.
They're fine with pretending that they care deeply about these crazy climate change plans put out by AOC and Bernie Sanders.
They don't want to talk about it publicly.
How do we know this?
Because a committee within the DNC on Thursday voted down a proposal for a debate focused on climate change.
The DNC resolution voted against the measure, though a resolution calling for a climate change debate could still be considered for a vote by the full committee on Saturday.
The committee defeated the resolution in a 17 to 8 vote.
So remember that time that every Democrat said this is the greatest crisis in the history of humanity?
And then they're like, well, let's hold a debate on it.
They're like, nah, you know, because then we'll have to talk about how we want to get rid of everybody's car and kill their cows.
That's it.
It is.
It is hilarious.
Democrats love talking about problems.
And then if somebody proposes an actual solution to the problem, then they get mad at the solution.
They say the actual solution to the problem should be feelings.
Feelings!
Just change the language.
Make it so a convicted rapist is not a convicted felon, they're a justice-involved person.
Make it so that a homeless person sleeping on the street, you have sympathy for them, so much sympathy you're going to allow them to loiter in public and pee in the gutter.
And do drugs on the open streets and defecate.
That's sympathy right there.
And if you say you want to clean that up, you want to arrest people who are loitering, you want their garbage to be thrown away because it is in fact piles of garbage.
If you suggest that there have to be consequences, that the people who are who are mentally ill and living on the street need to be put in a place where they can be taken care of.
If, without their permission, if they are seriously mentally ill, because many of these people cannot actually make intelligent, rational decisions.
If you are a schizophrenic, I have schizophrenia.
My grandfather was schizophrenic.
And that is not somebody who's capable of making rational decisions.
If you say that, they're like, oh, you're unsympathetic.
Sympathy and crappy policy matter a lot more than sympathy and good policy, so long as you can castigate good policy as unsympathetic.
That apparently is the way all of this works.
Okay, in just a second, I want to get to the G7 because the United States is in fact involved in the G7.
It's going to be pretty dicey this time around.
But first, let's talk about safety.
So, as I say, LA is now overrun with low-level petty crime.
There have been a bunch of robberies in my neighborhood, people breaking into houses.
One of the ways that people break into houses is they ring the doorbell.
They see if you are home.
If you do not answer, then they figure it's safe and they try to break into the house.
Well, this is where Ring comes in.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
They're doing just that, protecting millions of people everywhere.
This is why they have smart video doorbells and cameras.
I've had one on my house for a very long time.
All my friends have them too, and you should as well.
Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor or, God forbid, somebody coming to rob your house, they ring the doorbell, you can pick it up anywhere in the world, and they don't know whether you're at home or not.
You can also call the police if it turns out that it's somebody who is trying to do something criminal.
You'll get an alert.
You'll be able to see, hear, and speak to the people who are at your door, all from your phone.
Makes me feel safer.
Makes my wife feel safer.
Obviously, we are deeply concerned about safety around our house.
As a subscriber, you have a special offer on a Ring Welcome Kit available right now at ring.com slash ben.
That's ring.com slash ben.
The kit includes a video doorbell and a Chime Pro, which is just what you need to start building that ring of security around your home today.
Go to ring.com slash ben.
That is ring.com slash ben.
Go check them out.
Alrighty, now, before we get to the G7, I have some good news for you.
Let's say that you are a person who is looking for a job, and you'd like to work here.
I'm not going to tell you what it's actually like to work here, because that would be kind of off-putting.
I mean, to be frank.
But, thankfully, our business is indeed growing by leaps and bounds.
I mean, I'm old enough to remember when this business had seven employees.
We are now up to almost 100 employees, and we continue to grow.
We're growing by leaps and bounds.
We are once again looking to fill another position.
This time, it is in our social media department as a content creator.
So if you are a meme genius, if you are somebody who's great with social media, and you want to be a content creator, head on over to dailywire.com slash careers and send your information.
Again, that's dailywire.com slash careers.
Come be part of our fantastic team.
We have a bunch of other positions available as well.
I mean, we are growing by leaps and bounds.
I used to know the name of everybody who works here.
And I'm still learning everybody's name.
And I'm one of those people where I have to actually meet somebody like four times before I realize that their name ought to be embedded in my memory.
But you can be one of those people who requires meeting me four times for me to recognize you if you go over to dailywire.com slash careers.
Also, this upcoming Tuesday, August 27th, 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific, it's our latest episode of The Conversation.
Michael Molls will be answering your questions live on air, so make them good.
My first question, why, God, why?
The episode is free to watch on Facebook and YouTube.
Only subscribers can ask the questions.
So subscribe to Daily Wire.
Get your questions answered by Knowles.
Tuesday, August 27th, 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific.
Go join the conversation today.
Also, so many announcements.
It's that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber.
Today, it is Darren Littleton on Instagram has one heck of a view on his evening commute.
Look at that.
In the picture, Darren's Leftist Tears Tumblr is taking a ride on a Navy ship as he empties a few rounds of the awesome firepower on deck, which is just spectacular.
The caption reads, Wishing I could be at Backstage Live, but I'm busy sailing the sea of Leftist Tears.
Hashtag Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Hashtag Daily Wire.
Hashtag Hooyah.
Well, sir, we wish you could have been there as well.
It was a great event, but thank you.
You're doing something much more important than listening to us jabber.
We thank you for doing what you do and keeping this great country safe.
Man, members of our military, members of our police departments, thank you guys.
I mean, I get, honestly, it's humbling.
There's a lot of people who are members of the military, members of the police, firefighters, people who are in those positions across the nation who send me letters talking about how much they enjoy the show.
I'm always like, I don't do anything, right?
Like, I just jabber.
You guys are actually, You have the hardest job.
You're out there putting your lives on the line to defend the country and defend public order and defend safety with zero thanks from an entire side of the political aisle.
Thank you guys.
I mean, you guys are spectacular.
It really is fantastic.
I'm gonna have to talk with some people back here about what we can do.
We need to have some special programs for military folks.
Maybe we'll do like a military tour or something.
I think that'd be awesome.
Alright, anyway.
That is a discussion for another day.
We'll get to more in just one second.
Go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
That helps protect us from the nastiness of the left.
Join the team and go sign up.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
By the way, speaking of democratic proposals that demonstrate sympathy, Joe Biden wants to raise your taxes dramatically.
He wants the capital gains tax to be raised all the way back up to nearly 40%, which would basically double the capital gains tax.
You want to sink the stock market?
This seems like a pretty damn good way to do it.
One of the reasons the stock market has been doing so well is because if you make capital gains from your stocks, Those are taxed at a far lower rate than normal income.
Well now, Joe Biden wants to get rid of that differential.
Capital gains to get taxed just like regular income.
Get ready for the stock market to take a hit.
Well done, Joe Biden.
But at least he's sympathetic, guys.
At least he's sympathetic.
Okay.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is prepared to head on over to the G7.
Now, one of the things I always find hilarious about these international conferences is this pretend nonsense where we're part of a family of nations.
Oh, a family of nations.
We're just like a family, guys!
Except for how we hate each other a lot of the time and disagree, and we have our own particular interests, and there is no actual common interest between some of the members of the G7.
So the G7, it used to be the G8, it used to include Russia, now it's the G7 plus one.
It's a group consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the United States.
And there are a lot of internal disagreements about how to handle world affairs in the G7.
Those disagreements extend on everything from how to handle global warming and climate change all the way over to the Iran deal where the United States has taken a very hard line and the Europeans wish to continue to appease the Iranians and the evil regime that takes precedence there.
According to the Washington Post, Karen DeYoung and Josh Dousey writing, like an annual holiday gatherer, That's the part that's unfair.
It's always about Trump blowing it up.
family explosion.
That's actually kind of fair.
One of France's main objectives as host of this weekend's G7 is to minimize the chances that President Trump will blow it up.
That's the part that's unfair.
It's always about Trump blowing it up.
It's never about the Europeans taking crap positions.
Subjects on which to tread lightly include some of the biggest problems the world's major economies are facing, including trade, the system of international rules that has ordered the democratic world for decades, and climate change, according to the U.S., and other G7 officials.
Now, when it comes to trade, the reality is the reason that trade agreements have been so effective for the past 30 years, 40 years, is not because everybody agrees that we're all friends.
It's specifically because when you lower your own trade barriers, you're helping your own country.
So the national interest is in you lowering your tariffs, even if other people are not lowering their tariffs as a general rule.
Already, President Trump, though, has shaken up the schedule, calling at the last minute for a special meeting to discuss the global economy.
Senior administration officials say he will contrast U.S.
growth with Europe's economic doldrums and press his pro-jobs and fairer trade messages.
Well, it is certainly true that the United States regulatory system, our tax system, in many ways is better than Europe's highly confiscatory system that generally penalizes the middle class at exorbitant rates.
When it comes to trade, the president is not actually correct in his general take that trade is a zero-sum game.
It is unclear, of course, how receptive the others will be to whatever thoughts Trump might offer as to how they should shift their own economic approaches.
Many world leaders are blaming Trump's trade war with China and his threats against Europe and Japan for a major contraction in investment and spending.
That, of course, is inaccurate.
Germany's economy has been contracting.
China's economy was contracting before the tariffs actually kicked in.
Trump's refusal to agree to a joint view of the climate threat and an agenda to confront it roiled the first two G7 meetings he attended in Italy in 27 and in Canada last year.
Well, that is because half of the countries involved in the G7 make commitments on climate change and then don't fulfill the commitments and then virtue signal about how much they're going to lower emissions while the United States has actually lowered emissions more than any other country since 2014.
France hopes to sidestep that issue.
There will be no final communique.
It's going to be a bleep show, obviously.
But that is because, frankly, the United States does not have a lot of the same interests as a lot of the European countries right now.
And with all of that said, the question becomes what President Trump is going to do to prop up an image of the economy going into 2020.
The Dow is down about 450 points at this point today.
President Trump has ordered U.S.
companies to look for an alternative to China.
He tweeted, our country has lost stupidly trillions of dollars with China over many years.
They've stolen our intellectual property at a rate of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
They want to continue.
I won't let that happen.
We don't need China.
And frankly, we'd be far better off He says, our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies home and making your products in the United States.
First of all, that is not how law works, guys.
This is like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.
He sort of goes out in the middle of the office and he goes, I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!
You can't just declare on Twitter that American companies are immediately ordered to start looking for an alternative to China.
That's not what tariffs do.
Unless you're placing sanctions on China, like we have sanctions on Iran, that is not what this is.
With that said, China has unveiled new tariffs on Chinese goods.
China will implement new tariffs on another $75 billion worth of American goods, including autos.
Those tariffs will range between 5% and 10%.
Earlier in the day, stocks were teetering around flatline after Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, Delivered a speech from the annual Central Banking Symposium.
In it, he said the Fed would do what it can to sustain the current economic expansion.
He said our challenge now is to do what monetary policy can do to sustain the expansion, so that the benefits of the strong jobs market extend to more of those still left behind, and so that inflation is centered firmly around 2%.
He also said there's no rulebook for the US-China trade war.
He didn't really give an indication as to whether the rates will be cut again in September.
He says, after a decade of progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the economy is close to both goals, which does not suggest that the Fed is going to do a lot more in the near future.
Again, I'm not averse to an economic war with China, given that the Chinese are expanding their world power, given the fact that they use every dollar that they make in the world economy to pour into a fascistic communist regime that runs roughshod over the rights of its own citizens.
That it tries to expand its sphere of influence over the South China Sea, that builds military islands out of its holes in the South China Sea.
I mean, this is a dangerous geopolitical foe.
President Trump, I don't mind him saying that we need to make sacrifices in order to fight that foe, but he needs to give a national address on that, frankly.
He does.
He needs to make Democrats defend why they would instead enrich the Chinese government through mutual trade.
But he has to explain why the American people ought to take a hit on all of this.
If he doesn't explain that, then we've got these mixed messages that are not going to result in anything good for President Trump as time moves forward.
Okay, it is a Friday.
That means it's time for some mailbag.
Let's mailbag it up a little bit.
Ryan says, The Honorable Ben Shapiro.
When are you going to leave that hellhole and join us here in the great state of Texas, where your taxes get more than a traffic cone for much less?
But I digress.
Should Ancestry or DNA databanks be compelled to, or under their own will, comply with law enforcement?
What is the legal and or constitutional ramifications of these companies complying?
Well, it seems very dicey to compel DNA databanks or Ancestry sites to comply with federal law enforcement.
I mean, absent, you know, compelling search and seizure, usually that has to be directed against an actual suspect.
A blanket dictate that the government should have access to a DNA database?
That seems quite violative of the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure.
You didn't volunteer your information to the government, you volunteered it to a company with the basic understanding that the company was going to keep that in confidentiality.
So I'm really not into the idea of ancestry companies being forced by the federal government to turn over vast data banks.
Now, maybe that's a little bit different if you actually have a reasonable search and seizure.
Namely, they have a crime scene, they have a suspect, they want the DNA of that particular suspect.
The suspect is on the loose, for example.
Because normally you actually, there have been court cases on whether you can draw blood in a reasonable search and seizure in particular cases.
Garrett says, hey Ben, what in your view are our human rights?
Are they what's stated in our founding documents or is there more to it?
What's the counter argument to the thinking we have a human right to immigrate to any country we want?
Libertarians very often want open borders because they view it as a human right.
Thanks.
Well, human rights are the rights to life, liberty, and property, but those rights have to be guaranteed by the system.
They have to be guaranteed by the government.
If you are not a member of that system, then you don't have the right from that government.
You have a right generally, but rights have to be guaranteed.
The government is instituted to protect those rights.
So, it is not that anybody in the world has a right to enter the United States, particularly not if the United States is giving out welfare goodies, particularly if there are cultural changes that are inherent in you coming here and then voting.
Any country has the right to protect its own borders because if the country could not protect its own views of rights, then it would be very easy to see those rights overthrown by a change in the government.
So the founding fathers, when they said that there was inalienable rights, they did not mean that those rights were just out there in the universe and the government of the United States has the ability and the capability and the obligation to protect those for people around the world.
That is not how government works.
If that were the case, then the United States would have the moral authority to invade every country on earth and impose our view of natural rights, which I do not think that we have.
Ashley says, Hey Ben, to take a break from politics, can we gather around the campfire and hear the story of how the full Daily Wire team came together?
You, Knowles, Clavin, Elisha, and Walsh.
I'd love to know how you guys all got the band together.
Thanks.
Well, the first people to know each other here at the Daily Wire were me and my business partner, Jeremy Boring.
We were introduced by a guy that I used to work for who was in the talk radio industry.
At the time, he wanted to do movies, and Jeremy was the head of the not-so-secret secret underground Hollywood organization Friends of Abe, which was a bunch of conservatives in Hollywood.
So this guy was my boss at the time.
He said, well, Ben, you and Jeremy should talk about that.
Jeremy and I quickly became friends, and we started talking about business ventures together.
That was the sort of origin of our relationship.
So I've known Jeremy.
We've been business partners for almost a decade.
And then the next person in the group that I met was Elisha Krauss.
So Elisha and I were co-hosts.
So I knew Elisha a little bit when she was a producer for Sean Hannity.
And then she became a co-host on a morning show that I did here in Los Angeles called The Morning Answers.
Me and Elisha Krauss and Brian Whitman.
And we became close friends from that.
Then, Jeremy and I founded a company called Truth Revolt, and Elisha worked for us over there, and with us over there, and we also brought on Andrew Klavan at that time to do videos with us.
So, Klavan moved over and was doing some work at PJTV still, and he was doing work for us over at Truth Revolt, so that's how I got to know Andrew.
Knowles joined when we started Daily Wire.
He was there basically from inception, but he started off doing kind of social media for us, and he was doing some behind-the-scenes office work, and it turns out he was real crappy at that, so we gave him a show.
And then finally, Matt Walsh joined because we really enjoy Matt.
Matt's hilarious, and we hired him.
So that's how all the members of the band got together in terms of the out-front talent.
Now, the fact is that the company's a lot more than the out-front talent.
We're friends with a lot of the people we work with.
Thank God it's a really fun company to work for as much as I kid about it.
And the team that is behind the scenes is, I think, much more or just as important as the team that is out in front of the cameras.
And they have a much harder job because they don't get the credit for it, but they do an unbelievable job each and every day as much as I make fun of them.
Tate says, Dear Mr. Shapiro, every week it seems you are recommending a new book to read.
Thus, I was curious as to how many books you read a year.
What's the fastest you've read through a book?
Well, it depends on the length of the book, obviously.
Some books take a while.
So I'm reading this biography of Grant by Ron Chernow.
It's like a thousand pages.
That's probably going to take me a couple of weeks in my free time.
But the fact is that if I have time during the week, usually Shabbat is when I get my reading done.
Sabbath is when I get my reading done.
I'll usually read at least two books over the course of a Sabbath.
And then I usually read maybe one the rest of the week.
So two to three books I'm averaging, I think, over the course of a week.
But that really depends.
I mean, when I'm in the middle of writing a book, then I'm reading a lot for background.
And so I may end up reading five or six books in a week.
So I would say over the course of a year, I probably average somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 to 150 books.
Somewhere in there?
Now, that does not mean... And that's excluding some of the books that I just skim.
There are some books where you can read the intro and the conclusion and skim everything in the middle and you get the main argument of the book.
But I would say I'd read probably 100 books cover to cover and then I'd probably skim another 100 to 150 a year.
Something like that, probably.
Thanks for all you do.
I'd be happy to have on anybody.
I mean, we have on a wide variety of guests.
As far as biblical slavery.
So, the Bible does not mandate that people keep slaves.
how it differs or compares to slavery in America.
Also, I loved your conversation with Ravi Zacharias.
Are you gonna bring on Ray Comfort or Frank Turek in the future?
Thanks for all you do.
I'd be happy to have on anybody.
I mean, we have on a wide variety of guests.
As far as biblical slavery.
So the Bible does not mandate that people keep slaves.
And this is first of all.
Second of all, the Bible has historically been used Christians were some of the first people to outlaw slavery among fellow Christians.
Co-religionists were not allowed to be enslaved by Christianity early on in the development of the Christian Church.
Now, over time that was extended, obviously, to people who are not Christian.
And that's one of the great stories of humanity, is the development from enslaving of even your co-religionists to slavery being eliminated among intergroup rivals.
And because of the vast majority of human history, people have held slaves.
Slavery in the Bible is designed to restrict what slavery was.
Slavery in the Bible is a series of restrictions on how you can treat your slaves.
So, according to Talmudic Law, you have to feed your slave before you feed yourself.
According to Talmudic Law, according to Biblical Law, if somebody is an indentured servant for you, you have to give them their freedom at the end of seven years.
Maybe beforehand, depending on if it's the jubilee year.
And if somebody wants to stay because they already have a family with you, then you actually are supposed to hammer an awl through their earlobe to represent the fact that they are doing something wrong.
Because the idea is that they should be a free person subject only to God, not to another human being.
The treatment of slaves in the Bible is supposed to be a lot, lot, lot more humane than American slavery.
People were not supposed to be treated as property, they were supposed to be treated as fellow human beings who owed you a debt, basically.
Now, does that mean that it is right?
No.
But the Bible, and this is one of the problems with folks talking about the Bible who don't know what they're talking about, the Bible does two things.
One, it establishes eternal values, but two, it is also dealing with a specific set of people at a specific time.
It is talking to a specific group of people at a specific time and there are attempts to curb human nature in the Bible.
So at the time of the Bible, everyone held slaves.
So is the Bible attempting to make slavery broader or is it attempting to narrow slavery?
Is it attempting to make slavery more humane or is it attempting to make it less humane?
The Bible is obviously attempting to make it significantly more humane, significantly narrower.
The Bible is telling a group of people who held slaves and were not going to give them up That you need to move toward, eventually, abolition of slavery, which is how every abolitionist pretty much ever has read the Bible.
From William Wilberforce to Frederick Douglass, this is how abolitionists have read the Bible, and I think that is eminently correct.
So you have to understand that when you're trying to read the Bible just as a text, that the Bible is trying to accomplish two purposes.
To express universal human values about human relationships and good and evil.
And also that the Bible is trying to speak to a particular people at a particular time and wean them away from bad ideas.
This is what Maimonides says about sacrifice, for example.
That pagan peoples used to perform sacrifices, and the sacrifices were designed to propitiate the gods.
They were designed to feed, provide something to God that God couldn't get from you.
And Maimonides suggests that what biblical sacrifice was supposed to do is take that out of the realm of the pagan, and instead make it symbolic.
That you understand that really you owe your life to God, and that you have sinned, and really it should be you who's paying the price.
But instead, you need to feel that viscerally, and so you're forced to bring a sacrifice.
There's a lot of weaning in the Bible away from more primitive views and toward more developed, civilizational views.
Okay, well, you know what?
We don't have time for Things I Like or Things I Hate because we just went a little bit long today.
But we will be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours, or we'll see you here on Monday.
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 Sajovitz.
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.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know the saying, go woke, go broke?
Man, I hope that's true.
But America's top CEOs are now saying that businesses have to stop thinking about business so much and do some of that virtue stuff they've heard so much about.
We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection