Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 3, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:05

Red Flags Everywhere | Ep. 852

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hurricane Dorian gains steam, another mass shooting rocks Texas, and Hollywood celebs target anybody who backs Trump.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Guys, I hope you had a wonderful Labor Day weekend.
	That was something the labor movement was good for, right?
	I mean, the Labor Day weekend was nice.
	Just a random day that you get off.
	Also, the rest of this week is short, so we'll get through it together.
	We have a lot to get to today.
	Let's start with the latest on this hurricane.
	So according to the Washington Post, Category 3 Hurricane Dorian has parked itself over the northwestern Bahamas since Sunday night.
	I mean, this sucker is moving like traffic on the 405, meaning not at all.
	It has unleashed a nightmare 24-hour siege of devastating storm surge, destructive winds, and blinding rain.
	With Dorian perched perilously close to the Florida peninsula, Monday night into the first part of Tuesday has become the critical time that is likely to determine whether the state is dealt a powerful blow or a less intense scrape.
	Just tens of miles and subtle storm wobbles could make the difference between the two scenarios.
	The storm has come to a standstill over Grand Bahama Island.
	If it soon starts to turn north, Florida would be spared Dorian's full fury.
	It looks right now, according to the Storm Act, like that is a significant possibility that it sort of hugs the coast but doesn't actually slam into Florida full force.
	If Dorian lumbers just a little more to the west, more serious storm effects would pummel parts of the coastline.
	Such small differences in the track forecast will have similar implications further north from coastal Georgia to the Carolinas.
	Millions of people have been evacuated in expectation that this hurricane could slam into the Florida coast.
	The National Hurricane Center has issued hurricane storm surge and tropical storm watches and warnings from the Atlantic coast of Florida northward into South Carolina.
	Storm surge refers to the storm-driven rise in ocean water above normally dry land, according to the Washington Post.
	The National Weather Service office in Melbourne, Florida says the threat of damaging winds and life-threatening storm surge remains high.
	There will be considerable impact and damage to coastal areas with at least some effects felt inland as well.
	Okay, so guys, if you are in the path of the hurricane and the authorities are telling you to move, do not be a silly person.
	Move.
	We've seen too many cases where people stick around and then it puts people's lives in danger.
	Not just the people who stick around, but also people who are supposed to rescue them.
	You know, there are always these stories of people who stick around and brave it out.
	That's not braving it out, that's you being a moron.
	If they tell you to move, you should move.
	Because if you don't move, you're putting yourself at needless risk.
	So, that is sort of the story and the latest.
	This has not prevented the media from focusing in on the chief problem here.
	The chief problem, of course, is President Trump.
	Because always, always, It doesn't matter what's happening in the universe.
	President Trump is the black hole of attention that sucks in all light and emits none.
	So President Trump over the weekend, as per his usual routine, was riffing because this is what he does.
	And honestly, I find it really ridiculous.
	I found it ridiculous when Barack Obama did it.
	I find it ridiculous when Bush did it.
	I find it ridiculous when Trump does it.
	This routine where the president is supposed to go to the Storm Center at the Department of Homeland Security or at FEMA and he's supposed to oversee things.
	He ain't the king, okay?
	We've got entire staffs of people dedicated to doing this.
	You'd think that President Obama knew a lot about storm relief, like that was his area of expertise, when he would jet set into the aftermath of a hurricane and comfort people.
	Again, the president was a reality star long before Donald Trump was a reality star.
	And the notion that the president either controls the weather or has significant impact in how the weather is taken care of from above afterward is just ridiculous.
	FEMA handles it, there are regulations that govern how FEMA is supposed to handle all of this.
	In any case, President Trump, and this is not his fault, but he shows up at the Department of Homeland Security to talk about the hurricane.
	Again, I just find it so off-putting, this godlike emperor figure, not Trump, just the presidency, who's supposed to descend from on high and then talk about hurricanes like they know anything about hurricanes.
	Here's President Trump not knowing things about hurricanes.
	Americans are strong, determined, and resilient, and we will support each other.
	And we will work very hard to minimize whatever the effect of what's coming at us.
	We don't even know what's coming at us.
	All we know is it's possibly the biggest.
	I have not sure, I'm not sure that I've ever even heard of a Category 5.
	I knew it existed, and I've seen some Category 4s.
	You don't even see them that much.
	A category five is something that, uh, I don't know that I've ever even heard the term other than I know it's there.
	Okay, so everybody gets very uptight about Trump saying this sort of thing.
	Okay, because this is what Trump does, okay?
	Everything that he ever does is superlative.
	So if a woman is beautiful, she's not just beautiful.
	She's the most beautiful.
	And if a storm is big, it's not just big, it's the biggest we've ever seen.
	And if there's a recession, it's not just a recession, it's the worst recession in human history.
	And if it's a great economic boom, it's not just a great economic boom, it's the greatest economic boom since God created the earth.
	The seventh day, huge economic boom, let me tell you.
	Okay, so naturally the media go nuts over this.
	How dare Trump say he's never seen a Category 5 hurricane?
	Anderson Cooper is very upset about this because Anderson Cooper has stood outside in the middle of rainwater and such.
	So here is Anderson Cooper being very upset that Trump doesn't know there have been other Category 5s on his watch or something.
	Category 5 is something that I don't know that I've ever even heard the term.
	Okay, so what makes what you just heard even more confusing or even weirder is that multiple Category 5 hurricanes have either hit or threatened to hit the United States during his presidency.
	Wow.
	I mean, what heroic journalism there from Anderson Cooper.
	You mean President Trump got a thing wrong?
	Well, obviously that means he doesn't care about hurricanes.
	And then Anderson Cooper doubles down.
	He says, well, Trump's off golfing.
	Again, there are certain situations in which I think that the president is basically necessary.
	It seems to me that, let's say, when an embassy in Benghazi is on fire, and the president might be needed in order to determine whether or not American troops ought to be sent there to protect an American embassy, that jet setting off to Las Vegas for a party with Beyonce and Jay-Z, that might be, like, not a great thing to do.
	Or if you're going golfing in the middle of some sort of national security crisis, but you have an entire FEMA, Hey, you have an entire federal agency that is, that's directive, it's sole directive is to watch this stuff.
	Do you think that President Trump's presence in the White House is going to make a large deal of difference when it comes to the fallout from a hurricane that has not yet hit land?
	Granted, it's bad optics, but is it really a difference maker?
	Again, the role of the presidency in the public mind is so large and so ridiculous that we tend to think of the president as sitting over some sort of desk with control buttons.
	If I just hit this one right here, well, that means that I've stopped the hurricane.
	Deploy the resources, Bob!
	Pick up the red phone like the mayor on the old Batman show.
	In any case, here's Anderson Cooper saying, you know, Trump's off golfing and there's a hurricane about to hit.
	Okay, whatever, man.
	This was his 227th day at one of his golf clubs since he took office.
	Right.
	It would be one thing if he had not gone after the former president about golfing and said that he would never go golfing because he'd be too busy and doing too important work and winning so much.
	It's not us nitpicking, it's using his own criteria for judging other presidents, and by his own criteria, he sure is golfing a lot.
	Okay, well, again, there's something fair about that.
	I mean, Trump did go after Barack Obama a lot on the golfing, but I will note somebody who did not go after Barack Obama a lot on the golfing, and his name is Anderson Cooper.
	I don't remember Anderson Cooper doing a lot of stories about Barack Obama golfing.
	Now that it's Trump, it's like, oh, it's terrible.
	I can't believe that Donald Trump would go golfing.
	I mean, especially when he said golfing was bad.
	Right.
	And you said golfing wasn't bad.
	And now you think golfing is bad.
	So this whole thing, not everything is about Trump, guys.
	I mean, short story.
	Not everything is about Trump.
	It's a hurricane.
	We're all on the same side.
	We would like to see the hurricane not hurt people.
	And we will deploy all the resources we can.
	And that is going to be true, whether it is Barack Obama, or George W. Bush, or Donald Trump.
	Like, this is the most non-controversial part of being president, is, look, a disaster.
	Let's deploy the resources that we have federal taxation to pay for.
	Let's do that thing.
	And who's sitting around going, no, not gonna do it.
	This is such silliness.
	Now, in a second we're going to talk about silliness with regard to another topic where there should be unity, because that is the name of the political game these days, is that there's a topic where there should be some sort of unity, and instead we decide, you know what?
	No unity!
	Let's scream at each other for no apparent reason!
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, Let's talk about the fact that I have a lot of leftovers in my fridge.
	I know, fascinating topic.
	But the fact is, you probably have a lot of leftovers too.
	And I know what happens with that stuff.
	You throw it in the fridge, you're like, ah, the kids will eat it.
	And then they don't eat it.
	You're like, I know, I will eat it for sure.
	You don't eat it.
	Instead, you wait like four days, it starts to grow mold and you toss it in the garbage.
	Well, what if you had a better way of preserving that food so you could actually eat it later?
	What if you could save it?
	What if you could make sure that food was still edible, not just in like a day or two days, but in weeks or months?
	Your kitchen is filled with appliances.
	None can save you money or help you prepare for a natural disaster or any of the litany of things that can and will go wrong in your lifetime until a company in Salt Lake City had an idea.
	They took an industrial-sized freeze dryer, and then they found a way to shrink it down for the average American kitchen, which was pretty awesome.
	The Harvest Right freeze dryer is a revolutionary new way to preserve food in the comfort and convenience of your own home.
	It is super cool.
	I mean, again, they have entire companies dedicated to freeze-drying food.
	Instead, you could just do it in your own house, because now you have the machine.
	No more wasted food, and you can take advantage of deals at the grocery store.
	You can preserve the rest for a later date.
	You can make the healthiest snacks for your family.
	You can create your own customized home food storage plan in the event of some sort of natural disaster, like, say, a hurricane.
	Here's the best part.
	The food can last for up to 25 years.
	So head on over to HarvestRight.com, check out this revolutionary appliance, or give them a call at 800 378-75-71, that's harvestright.com, or 800-378-75-71.
	Freeze-drying stuff's pretty cool, and again, saves you a lot of money, saves you a lot of time, and makes sure that you're not just tossing away food for no reason.
	800-378-75-71, harvestright.com, that's harvestright.com.
	Okay, so meanwhile, speaking of topics where there should be unanimity, and yet there is not, there is a mass shooting over the weekend again.
	And this is happening far too often, obviously.
	But this one was out of the news within 48 hours.
	And this is always fascinating to watch.
	Because when a mass shooting happens, if it fulfills certain criteria the media are looking for, it remains in the news forever.
	If it does not fulfill the criteria the media are looking for, it disappears.
	It's gone, right?
	So if it's the El Paso shooting and it's a white supremacist shooting Hispanics going aisle to aisle in a Walmart, in the news forever.
	If it is a shooting at a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, in the news forever.
	If it is a shooting of children in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, in the news forever.
	If it's a shooting in Parkland, Florida, in the news forever.
	If it's a shooting at a gay club in Orlando, nope, we don't talk about that one anymore.
	If it is a shooting at a church in Texas, we don't talk about that one anymore.
	If it's a shooting in Dayton, Ohio, we don't talk about that one anymore.
	And this one here in Odessa, Texas, we don't talk about this one.
	There's no need to talk about this one.
	Why?
	Because there are certain criteria the media are looking for.
	One, they're looking for a long gun.
	They're looking for somebody who's using an AR-15.
	Two, they're looking for somebody who's motivated by some sort of white supremacist or quasi-right beliefs that they can pin on conservatives.
	And three, they're looking for some sort of mass shooting scenario in which the motive is not only clear and convincing, but the person who is at issue is not really on anyone's radar so much.
	If there are too many red flags, then it tends to fall off, right?
	If there are too many red flags, so you need a clear motive in order for the media to let, and the motive has to be some sort of motive that cannot be attributed to the left.
	So if it's an attempted shooting of congressional baseball players, people playing baseball who are in Congress, then that doesn't make the news.
	It has to be a clear motive.
	The motive has to be a right-wing motive or something that can be pinned on the right wing if you're the media.
	And three, it has to be with a certain type of gun.
	So if it's with a handgun, then it doesn't make a difference.
	If it's with a long gun, that's what you're looking for.
	Those are the three.
	A motive they can attribute to the right, and it has to be with a particular type of gun.
	Well, this shooting in Odessa did not fulfill all of those three categories.
	According to CNN, the Odessa Police Department on Sunday identified the man who killed seven people and wounded 22 others in a shooting spree in West Texas.
	Now immediately, as soon as the spree started happening, this was top of news, obviously, because it's big news when someone goes on a shooting spree.
	This person, it turns out, however, was not motivated by any sort of right-wing beliefs.
	And not only was this person not motivated by right-wing beliefs, there are a thousand red flags.
	This is one of the criteria, too, is the media would like for somebody who didn't trip off any red flags, really, because then it can't be blamed on government failure.
	Then it can be blamed on the right-wing generally.
	It can be blamed on America's tenor of violence.
	If, however, it can be blamed on the authorities missing it over and over and over and over again, then things get really awkward because the media don't like that story.
	This is what happened in Parkland.
	In Parkland, it was the authorities led by the Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, failing repeatedly to target the shooter in that particular case or protect the school.
	The media just pretended that never happened.
	And then there's this big town hall on CNN.
	With Dana Lash and and with Marco Rubio in which the right wing was abused while Scott Israel stood there and grinned with Jake Tapper presiding.
	That's what the media are looking for.
	This shooting does not fulfill any of these criteria.
	So according to CNN, this particular shooter had been fired from his trucking job just hours before the rampage killing, according to The New York Times.
	Also, this person was arrested in 2001 for criminal trespass and evading arrest, both misdemeanors, according to public records.
	Adjudication was deferred, though the details of the case were not immediately available.
	Also, his record included a 2018 traffic citation for a federal motor carrier safety violation, according to Hector County Court records.
	Apparently, the shooter was pulled over by Texas troopers in Midland on Saturday afternoon for failing to use his signal.
	He then shot at the troopers with what police described as an AR-type weapon and sped away.
	Okay, so they get one factor, but not the other two.
	Driving on streets and highways, he sprayed bullets randomly at residents and motorists, according to police.
	The man then hijacked a postal truck and ditched his gold Honda, shooting at people as he made his way into Odessa, about 20 miles away.
	There, police confronted him in a movie theater parking lot and killed him in a shootout.
	It's unclear what the motive was, according to investigators.
	The FBI special agent in charge, Christopher Combs, at his agency responds to Texas frequently.
	He said the FBI is, quote, here now almost every other week supporting our local and state partners on active shooters.
	We're almost every two weeks an active shooter in this country.
	Apparently there are about 15 different crime scenes.
	Now, it was pretty clear early on, according to media reports, that there were a thousand red flags that got missed, which again counters why this thing should be in the news, according to the media.
	If there are red flags, it's a government failure.
	That's bad.
	What the media are looking for is no government failure.
	He called the national tip line about 15 minutes before his encounter with the troopers.
	Right.
	You know, something white supremacists they can pretend is a normal conservative position, even when it totally isn't.
	So ABC News reports that this Odessa shooter actually called an FBI headline like 15 minutes before he went on a shooting spree.
	He called the national tip line about 15 minutes before his encounter with the troopers.
	It was, frankly, rambling statements about some of the atrocities that he felt that he had gone through.
	He did not make a threat during that phone call.
	He ended that phone call.
	After the phone call, we initiated all of our law enforcement procedures, trying to figure out who he was, where he was.
	Fortunately, it was only 15 minutes before the trooper was engaged.
	Okay, so that was one red flag.
	And then there was another red flag.
	Apparently, CNN reported that this particular shooter threatened to shoot his neighbor next month.
	And nothing happened.
	At all.
	That's a pretty big red flag there, guys.
	He is a 36-year-old white man.
	A neighbor tells CNN that last month he threatened her with a rifle after she put trash in a nearby dumpster.
	She says that he would often shoot into his backyard from a structure on top of his house and then go and retrieve dead animals.
	She also tells us that she called the police after that incident last month but claims they never showed up because the property's location doesn't show up on GPS.
	And it's hard to find.
	As far as a motive, that is still unknown, and the FBI special agent in charge warns we may never know.
	Well, whoopsie doodle.
	So it turns out that there are all of these terrible red flags, everybody missed them, and that's why you're not hearing about this shooting anymore.
	It's not going to be top of news today.
	If this were El Paso, it would be in the news for weeks.
	It's not El Paso, so therefore it's not in the news for even days.
	Now as we'll see, the Odessa shooter also failed a gun background check.
	And we'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about why I feel like I need to use a VPN.
	So just a couple of years ago, I am constantly traveling.
	I use public Wi-Fi.
	I assume that while I was on public Wi-Fi, somebody actually hacked some of my credit card passwords and then proceeded to buy a bunch of NFL tickets.
	I looked at my charge card.
	I never really looked at my charge bills until a couple of months later.
	I looked at my charge card and I was like, why have I bought 83 NFL tickets?
	That's weird.
	I've never been to a live, I've been to one live NFL game in my entire life.
	So that's kind of odd.
	Well, turns out that somebody had stolen my information.
	At that point, I was like, you know what?
	I should probably have a VPN.
	And that's when I turned to ExpressVPN.
	You should be using ExpressVPN every time you go online.
	There are too many people who want your data.
	Big tech companies that are using your data for their own purposes.
	governments that are looking for your data to monitor you, particularly if you're abroad.
	And then you got hackers who are constantly looking for your data so that they can use it against you.
	When I use ExpressVPN, search engines and media sites can't see my IP address at all.
	My identity is masked and anonymized as well.
	ExpressVPN has the added benefit of encrypting 100% of your data to keep you safe from people who you don't want to have that information.
	ExpressVPN software, it takes just one minute to set up on your computer or phone.
	It really is very easy.
	You tap one button and you are now protected.
	I know the dudes who run ExpressVPN.
	I definitely trust them with my data, which for me, since I'm a public figure, is a pretty important thing.
	Protect your online activity today with the VPN I trust to keep my data safe.
	Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to claim an exclusive offer just for my fans.
	That's EXPRESSVPN.com slash Ben for three months free with the one year package.
	Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to get started.
	Go check it out right now.
	OK, so.
	As I say, more red flags.
	Apparently, the Odessa shooter failed the gun background check.
	The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, he tweeted on Monday that a gunman in Saturday's mass shooting in Midland and Odessa had previously failed the gun purchase background check, did not go through a background check to buy the gun used in Saturday's incident.
	Whoops!
	Another thing that cuts against this being in the news.
	If it turns out there are regulations that were already violated, then would another regulation have stopped any of this?
	The answer, of course, Is no.
	Abbott's tweet didn't say, according to the Texas Tribune, why the 36-year-old Odessa man didn't pass the background check or how he obtained the rifle he used to kill seven people and injure 22 others.
	Abbott also cited the shooter's criminal history, said we must keep guns out of criminals' hands.
	Now, this should be an area of relative unanimity.
	As I say, the left doesn't have the ability to blame it on the right.
	This is obviously a bunch of red flags that were ignored, a bunch of government failures.
	This guy violated a bunch of regulations, so additional regulations probably would not have helped here.
	And yet somehow, this has still become a partisan issue.
	Because if we can make a hurricane partisan, man, we can make anything partisan.
	And if it's not partisan enough, then it just sort of drops off the table in the news cycle.
	It's no longer there.
	Well, leading the charge this time in the gun control battle is Joe Biden, who's been looking for sort of a rationale for being in the race.
	The big problem for Joe Biden is that he still can't answer a very simple question.
	Why are you running?
	This is one of the big problems for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
	Bernie Sanders could tell you why he's running.
	He wants more Putin, of course, but actually he was running because he wants more socialism.
	Hillary Clinton kept being asked why she was running, and it was basically because I deserve it.
	And Joe Biden is the same thing.
	If you ask Joe Biden why he's running, he'll talk about the soul of the country and all this stuff.
	But what it really feels like is he's running because he's real old and he's run one million times before and he was Barack Obama's VP.
	And shouldn't you just sort of hand it to him like a lifetime achievement award?
	It's like the Oscars, and you know somebody's about to plot, so you give them the Lifetime Achievement Award.
	Well, there's a problem for Joe Biden.
	So he's been looking for some sort of spice in his campaign.
	And the media are picking up on this.
	So the media love, love, love, love, love Elizabeth Warren.
	And we'll get to Senator Warren in just a second, because her career is sort of fascinating.
	It's fascinating how she moved from a sort of heterodox, iconoclastic thinker into somebody who is doctrinaire, on the left, Bernie Sanders type, because she didn't used to be.
	But Joe Biden The reason the media are out of love with him right now is because he can't answer that simple question.
	So the New York Times has a piece today by Mark Leibovich titled, Does Joe Biden want to be doing this?
	Which is always a good sign for your campaign.
	Do you even want to be here, Joe?
	Joseph R. Biden was asked after a recent speech in Pearl, Iowa.
	The answer to such an inquiry would appear self-evident in the case of Mr. Biden, who began his running-for-president routine more than three decades ago.
	In other words, very badly, one would assume.
	But the question posed by a reporter seemed to come at Mr. Biden as a bit of a curveball, a variant of the why-do-you-want-to-be-president riddle that CBS's Roger Mudd famously stumped Ted Kennedy with 40 years ago.
	The former VP paused.
	I think it's really, really, really important that Donald Trump not be reelected, Biden said, which is more of a rationale than an answer.
	That's true.
	I mean, when the New York Times says that's more of a rationale than an answer, correct.
	But that doesn't explain why you want to be president.
	That explains why you don't want Donald Trump to be president.
	He then launched into a classic Biden roller derby of verbiage, in which he listed all the reasons he found Trump so distasteful.
	He landed on a question to himself.
	Could I die happily, not having heard hail to the chief play for me?
	He said, yeah, I could.
	That's not why I'm running.
	So why is he running, says The New York Times?
	And is the singular nature of the opponent all it will take to convince voters that Joe Biden really wants to be doing this right now, at this vicious moment in our politics, at this stage of his life?
	Remarkably, after all this time, Mr. Biden stumbles to come up with a clear answer.
	His use of Mr. Trump as a campaign mission statement might be a good enough reason, at least to win Biden the Democratic nomination in a large field where two other leading candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, appear to be splitting the progressive vote, which would be less inclined to support him to begin with.
	Biden's campaign has been jackhammering home the premise that he is best suited to winning a general election against an incumbent who must not be reelected.
	Anita Dunn, who used to work for the Obama White House, she says, he doesn't think you need a revolution here.
	Instead, it's a strategic bet, according to The New York Times, that given the possibility of another four years of Trump, Democrats will gravitate to the familiar and reach for the stitched up old teddy bear of a candidate.
	Brutal.
	But that is the reality.
	So Joe Biden has been looking for a rationale for why he is running, because while his numbers are fairly durable so far, if he can't answer that question sometime in here, it's going to be a serious problem for him.
	Right now, he's running in the low 30s.
	But let's say that we go another year, another year.
	Remember, it's still September.
	The nominee is not going to be determined in the Democratic Party until July of next year.
	So it's going to be another 10, 9, 10 months of this routine.
	If Joe Biden can't come up with a better answer for why are you running for president, then I really, really dislike Trump.
	Then it's over for you, buddy.
	Well, so Biden is looking for a rationale when he thinks maybe he's found it in gun control.
	Now, he's not good at this.
	This is part of the problem for Joe Biden.
	And so even when he's making the case in favor of gun control, he literally has no idea what he is talking about.
	This is a guy who once suggested that he bought a pump action shotgun so that if somebody came on his property and was a criminal, you could either blast through a door, which would be probably a bad idea because you don't know who's on the other end of it, or that he would go out onto the balcony of his home and fire the gun into the air, which is like something that he saw from an old Western with Charlton Heston or something.
	Here is Joe Biden over the weekend suggesting that his solution on this is a ban on magazines.
	He says any magazine that holds a bullet, which is literally what a magazine is meant to do.
	So what is he talking about?
	We're all going to start turning in every semi-automatic weapon and using revolvers and old bolt action rifles.
	What the hell is he talking about here?
	It has to stop.
	The idea that we don't have elimination of assault-type weapons, magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them, is absolutely mindless.
	It is no violation of the Second Amendment.
	It's just a bow to the special interest of the gun manufacturers and the NRA.
	Okay, so any gun that can hold multiple bullets he wants to ban?
	And that's bowing to the NRA?
	One of the things that is so irritating about gun control talk for the left Is that people do not become pro-gun because the NRA exists.
	The NRA exists because people are pro-gun.
	It's like saying that Planned Parenthood, in the absence of Planned Parenthood, there would be no push for abortion.
	No, Planned Parenthood exists because there was a push for abortion.
	Emily's List exists because there's a push for abortion.
	The NRA is no different.
	It will get to more of the Democrats trying to find a reason to exist by pushing gun control in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that we are all going to die.
	I know, depressing for the day after a Labor Day weekend, but it's a reality, man.
	And that is why you should be looking at Policy Genius right now.
	Because if you know you're going to plot, and you do, take five minutes, think about it, then never think about it again, but make sure that your family is insured.
	September is National Life Insurance Awareness Month, the most exciting month of the year.
	Most people may not be aware of this little fact.
	In fact, most people aren't even aware they need life insurance at all, which is why 40% of Americans don't have it.
	So this math doesn't line up.
	40% of Americans don't have life insurance, but 100% of Americans will die.
	So this doesn't make any sense.
	If you don't have life insurance and you're an adult, do some adulting and get life insurance right now, especially because prices are the lowest they have been in 20 years.
	PolicyGenius has made it easier than ever to get covered.
	PolicyGenius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online.
	In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find your best price.
	Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape.
	Again, PolicyGenius makes it supremely easy.
	They don't just do life insurance, by the way.
	They do Home insurance and auto insurance and disability insurance.
	So if you need life insurance, but you just haven't gotten around to it, National Life Insurance Awareness Month, you are now aware, so go do it.
	Policygenius.com, get quotes, apply in minutes.
	You can do the whole thing on your phone right this very moment.
	Policygenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	Okay, so it's not just Joe Biden out on the campaign trail.
	Trying to claim that we should get rid of magazines that hold multiple bullets, which good luck with that.
	Also, Biden then suggests that President Trump doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to pass gun control because Joe Biden is a man of courage while he's stumbling into trees and such.
	So no possible solution to deal with this gun issue.
	There is a solution.
	I don't see anything out there.
	Do you?
	I've seen nothing.
	The president has no intestinal fortitude to deal with it.
	He knows better.
	His instinct was to say, yeah, we're going to do something about it.
	What's he doing?
	Come on.
	This is disgraceful.
	This is disgraceful.
	There is no solution.
	The solution is to win.
	Well, I seem to recall that you were vice president for eight years, and for several of those years, at the very beginning of the presidency, you had basically 60 votes in the Senate.
	That's how you got Obamacare.
	And yet you didn't do anything on this topic.
	Weird.
	Weird.
	Biden also stumbled and bumbled over the Constitution here.
	He says, well, the Constitution doesn't say anyone can own a weapon.
	Well, the Constitution does pretty much say that, so long as you're not a criminal.
	That's kind of what the Second Amendment basically says.
	It's a right to keep and bear arms.
	So yeah, it does actually.
	Every single solitary amendment has a limitation on it.
	Now, the limitation that exists on the Second Amendment is, nowhere does it say you can own any kind of weapon you want.
	Nowhere does it say anyone can own a weapon.
	And those who say, maybe some do, that the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots, meaning you've got to be able to have enough power to take on your government, well, you need an F-15.
	You need an M1 tank.
	You need flamethrowers.
	You need bazookas.
	No, I'm serious!
	If that's the rationale.
	OK, I know that that's actually not a serious argument, considering the fact that small arms have typically been a fairly good method of resisting a major power, as Joe Biden will know.
	But in any case, Joe Biden stumbling.
	It doesn't say anyone can.
	It kind of does.
	Right.
	I mean, as long as you're an adult with very minor restrictions, it basically says if you're a law abiding citizen, then you can own a weapon.
	OK, so it's not just Biden doing this.
	It's also Beto O'Rourke.
	Beto desperately looking for rationale for his campaign.
	And he has also stumbled on gun control because of the shooting in El Paso.
	He says he's just going to start confiscating semi-automatic weapons.
	Yes, I'm sure that nothing promotes people coming together quite like saying that you're going to take 150, 200 million Americans and just forcibly remove their guns from them.
	I'm sure this is going to go great for Beto O'Rourke.
	How do you address the fear that the government is going to take away those assault rifles, as you call them, if you're talking about buybacks and bannings?
	Yeah.
	So I want to be really clear that that's exactly what we're going to do.
	Americans who own AR-15s, AK-47s, will have to sell them to the government.
	We're not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities.
	Okay, so we're not going to allow.
	How is he going to do this?
	With his magic precedenting powers?
	This is one of the problems with the idea of the president as dictator.
	This is not how any of this works.
	Now, one of the things that makes unanimity nearly impossible in the country right now, and it makes it impossible to even have rational discussions, even about things like gun control, is that we don't trust our neighbors.
	And if we did trust our neighbors, maybe we wouldn't want the government coming in and invading the rights of our neighbors so much.
	In one second we're going to get to why exactly we don't trust our neighbors and the answer is maybe your neighbor is a jackass.
	We're going to get to that in just one second.
	First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe for $9.99 a month or $99 a year.
	You can subscribe to dailywire.com.
	I'll tell you why you should do this.
	Not only when you get the annual subscriptions, you get this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	Cast your eyes upon it and weep that you have it not.
	The leftist tier is hot or cold tumbler.
	Not only do you get that, but you also get to be part of the team.
	And this really does help us because as we'll see in a moment, the left is firmly intent on destroying anyone who disagrees with them.
	They play this game where you have a conversation with someone you disagree with and suddenly you're the bad guy.
	This is the game the left wants to play.
	And they want to make it utterly unpalatable for views they disagree with to be aired in public.
	And so when you subscribe, you actually help us make sure that we have the resources to go around their gatekeepers and make sure that you can get the sort of content that you want here at Daily Wire.
	It really is helping us out, helping yourself out, helping the First Amendment out.
	When you go to dailywire.com, put your money where your belief system is and join the team over here at Daily Wire.
	We really do appreciate it.
	Our employees appreciate it.
	I know that all of our listeners appreciate it.
	Come join Daily Wire right now.
	Now, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So we are now in a vicious cycle of distrust, right?
	We have decided that because some people in our community want to use the government to come after us, that we distrust those people.
	And then those people decide that because they distrust you, they want the government to go after you.
	So it's this vicious cycle of mistrust.
	And this is why, for example, red flag gun laws, which seem like they make a lot of sense, they rely on the idea that your neighbor isn't going to call the cops on you just because you have a political disagreement.
	Red flag gun laws are the idea that a neighbor, a friend, they see something bad happening, they call the cops, and now there can be a preliminary removal of your guns for the moment while we ascertain what exactly is going on.
	And frankly, I don't have a general problem with this idea.
	The problem is that you may have your next door neighbor who just wants to remove your guns, bite into the fact they disagree with you.
	And evidence of this comes from our good friends in Hollywood.
	So, remember that time when Hollywood was super pissed off Because supposedly it was a wide breach of American values to target actual communist agents inside Hollywood.
	There were the McCarthy hearings, and this was apparently the worst thing that ever happened in the United States.
	Now, McCarthy hearings were quite bad, but worst thing to ever happen in the United States, not so much.
	People are going to say I'm strawmanning that.
	How many films has Hollywood made about the McCarthy era?
	Approximately 1,623,211.
	I mean, they make a movie about the McCarthy era every five minutes.
	Meanwhile, they are McCarthyites.
	The highest levels of Hollywood are McCarthyites.
	It's the reason why I have a number of fairly prominent Hollywood people that I talk to.
	When I say fairly prominent, I mean A-listers who I talk to on a fairly regular basis, and I will never, ever reveal who they are, specifically because then the left would come and ruin their career.
	Then the left would come in and suggest that these people should not be able to talk to me, a mainstream conservative, because this inherently makes them very, very bad.
	And you've seen this over and over with anybody who even has a conversation with people on the right.
	I have literally met in restaurants in Los Angeles wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses with people in Hollywood on like early Sunday mornings when no one else is around because people are afraid that they are going to be spotted by other forces in Hollywood who call them out for even having met with a prominent conservative.
	It truly is unbelievable.
	Well, listen, I'm willing to meet with pretty much anybody.
	I have met with all sorts of very, very prominent, famous people in a wide variety of industries.
	I will never reveal who those people are because, frankly, it's nobody's damn business.
	And the fact is that Hollywood and journalists who are out there, they wish to harm people who will even text with people, have conversations with people.
	So here is a perfect example.
	So Andy Lassner is a really nice guy.
	Andy Lassner also happens to be a producer on Ellen.
	And this means that he can be shamed.
	He can be shamed.
	Now, Andy Lassner, good dude, right?
	I've dealt with him a little bit on Twitter.
	Seems like a really nice guy.
	He's friends with Yashar Ali, another really nice guy who I've dealt with on Twitter.
	Andy Lassner, he tweeted out after this latest shooting.
	Here's the truth.
	I don't have the answer to the gun problem and mass shootings.
	I don't want to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
	Many people in my life own guns, but we must have a serious, but we have a serious problem and we must start talking about gun violence solutions in a bipartisan way.
	This is what we call a reasonable tweet, like a thing a reasonable person would say to another reasonable person.
	So Dana Lash, who used to be a spokesperson for the NRA, and now she's a radio host, right?
	She's a radio host now, that's what she does, because she's no longer with the NRA.
	She tweeted out, we have to penalize agencies that do not submit all prohibited cases to NCIC.
	That'd be the Federal Registry.
	Charleston, Sutherland Springs, those are examples of where the local agencies did not submit the proper reports to the national database.
	She says they're not following the law.
	Also, we need to stop coddling dangerous offenders in their youth by preventing establishment of criminal record.
	And she points out Dayton, Ohio and Parkland, Florida.
	And these are cases where young people who are under the age of 18.
	have done bad things in their past criminal things.
	And then we have no registry of that, so that the cops cannot remove them of their guns.
	And Andy Lassner tweets back, well, this is definitely a start.
	Okay, this is what we call a reasonable conversation, where Andy Lassner says, you know, it'd be great, some solutions.
	And then Dana comes back and says, here are a couple of things.
	And he says, this is a good idea.
	Aaron Rupar, an alleged reporter for Vox.com, immediately tweets out, quote, it's silly to earnestly engage with a former paid NRA gun show on the topic of preventing gun violence.
	First of all, you want to talk of paid shills?
	Dude works for Vox.
	Second of all, it's silly to earnestly engage?
	Like, you can't have a conversation with anybody?
	If you have a conversation, you're a very bad person?
	The way that the left would like to treat people on the right.
	This is why we can't have any sort of regulations that rely on public trust, because the public trust is gone.
	If you treat your neighbor like they are a leper from the leper colony in Papillon, the original, that if you get in, that if you talk, if Andy Lassner talks with Dana Lash, then Dana Lash is like a leprous character, and she's going to infect him with her leprosy.
	And Aaron Rupar is there to police the boundary.
	He's there to stop you from having that conversation.
	Why the hell would I allow people like Aaron Rupert to control regulations or legislation?
	Why would I trust a neighbor like Aaron Rupert?
	Why would I do that?
	The answer is, I would not.
	And most Americans would not.
	And it's true in journalism, right, that you have this whole This whole cadre of alleged journalists whose sole job it is apparently to prevent conversation from happening between moderate left and moderate right.
	To prevent any sort of discussion from happening.
	If you have that person on your podcast, then you are a bad man.
	You're a bad person.
	If you have a conversation with that person, you're a bad person.
	If you say maybe that person's well-intentioned, you're a bad person.
	That's the same thing in Hollywood.
	So now, as I say, it's in journalism and it's also in Hollywood.
	Lassner is in Hollywood, so that means that Ruppar thinks he's subject to his blackmail.
	And he's not subject to anybody's blackmail.
	He's his own thinker.
	It's ridiculous.
	OK, but it's not just that.
	You had Will and Grace, the stars of Will and Grace over the weekend, come out and suggest that they wanted the names of anybody in Hollywood who supported Trump.
	So now we are going the full Joaquin Castro in Texas route.
	You remember Joaquin Castro, the representative in Texas?
	He tweeted out the names of all the Trump donors in his district, half of whom supported him too.
	Because he's a jerk.
	So the Hollywood Reporter tweeted out President Donald Trump to appear at Beverly Hills Fundraiser during Emmys week.
	Now, I happen to know some of the people who are going to this fundraiser, because I know most of the prominent Republicans in the city.
	Eric McCormick, who is one of the actors on Will & Grace, and he's also the guy from Travelers, if you've seen that, on Netflix.
	Hey, Hollywood Reporter, kindly report on everyone attending this event so the rest of us can be clear about who we don't want to work with.
	Thanks.
	In other words, I want to blackmail everybody who disagrees with me politically.
	If anybody gives money to Donald Trump, I will never work with them ever, ever, ever again.
	Yeah, I trust you guys to be part of the common community where we trust each other, and we don't call the authorities unless we need to, and we never use the power of the government gun to point it at our friends.
	I definitely trust you guys.
	And Debra Messing, also of Will & Grace, then tweets out, Please print a list of all attendees, please.
	The public has a right to know.
	The public has a right to know how delightful she is.
	I mean, what delightful people these folks are.
	President Trump then tweeted his own response.
	He says, I have not forgotten that when it was announced that I was going to do The Apprentice and when it became a big hit, helping NBC's failed lineup greatly, Deborah Messing came up to me at an upfront and profusely thanked me, even calling me sir.
	How times have changed.
	One of the things that drives Hollywood so nuts about Trump is that they created him.
	He is their Frankenstein monster.
	Donald Trump was basically a D-list celebrity until The Apprentice.
	And then The Apprentice happens and he becomes an A-list celebrity again and he's appearing on the Emmys singing Green Acres with one of the stars of Will & Grace, Megan Mullally.
	So that's pretty ironic and pretty hilarious.
	The larger point is that you cannot have a community or a republic in which people are forbidden from having conversations with each other and where people are deliberately attempting to destroy each other's lives.
	So here is another example of this outside of Hollywood.
	So there's this couple named Carl and Angel Larson.
	And this couple is now in the middle of a lawsuit, a federal appeals court lawsuit just reinstated A lawsuit filed by these two Minnesota filmmakers.
	They want the right to refuse to film same-sex weddings.
	They said that videos are a form of speech with constitutional protections under the First Amendment.
	So Carl and Angel Larson run a Christian business called Telescope Media Group in St.
	Cloud, is according to the AP.
	They sued the state's Human Rights Commissioner in 2016, saying Minnesota's public accommodation law would result in steep fines and jail time if they offered services promoting only their vision of marriage.
	So they're videographers, they only do traditional marriages, and the state of Minnesota basically threatened them with jail if they would not create videos on behalf of same-sex couples.
	Because this is America, guys, and we can't have people creating the videos they want to create.
	A federal judge dismissed the case two years ago, but a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S.
	Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision on Friday.
	The panel sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to consider a preliminary injunction that would allow the Larsons to operate their business without fear of being found in violation of Minnesota's Human Rights Act, according to the Star Tribune.
	Judge David Strass is a former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice.
	He wrote in Friday's opinion that wedding videos involve editorial judgment and control and constituted a media for the communication of ideas, which is obviously true.
	Judge Jane Kelly issued a dissenting opinion.
	She said that the service the Larsons want to make available to the public is expressive, does not transform Minnesota's law into a content-based regulation, nor should it empower the Larsons to discriminate against prospective customers based on sexual orientation.
	It's another perfect example of neighbors not leaving each other alone.
	Hey, the Republic relies on neighbors leaving each other alone.
	If we don't leave each other alone, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult for us to have any common politics at all.
	And this is what we are watching in action.
	This is why politics continue to become so partisan.
	Because if I don't trust you and you don't trust me, and the only question is who gets to control the gun, That shoots the other guy?
	Well, then politics is basically bloodsport.
	Now, speaking of bloodsport, you want to know somebody for whom politics has become bloodsport is Elizabeth Warren.
	So, Senator Warren is obviously running strong in the Democratic primaries right now.
	Not quite as strong as I think a lot of the media would have it.
	By which I mean that if you look at the poll averages right now nationally, she is still running third.
	There's a lot of talk about her being the new frontrunner.
	The polls are pretty conflicted about that.
	There are a couple of polls that came out in the last week.
	The last two polls had Joe Biden up 7 points and Joe Biden up 4 points, respectively.
	Only one of those polls had Elizabeth Warren in second place.
	That was the Economist YouGov poll that had Biden up over her 25 to 21.
	The Emerson poll had her down in third, trailing Joe Biden by 16 points.
	In fact, on average, in the last maybe 7 or 8 polls, she's down somewhere between 13 and 17 points to Joe Biden in most of these polls.
	So for all the talk about her being the new frontrunner, that is a little premature.
	However, it is sort of fascinating to watch Elizabeth Warren's transformation as a candidate.
	I've only met Elizabeth Warren one time.
	I audited her class when I was at Harvard Law, and I was like, this isn't for me.
	She used to teach property.
	But I did take a sample class with her when I was at Harvard Law School.
	She was a good teacher.
	I mean, I will say that she was very live in the classroom.
	She was very charismatic in the classroom.
	The very first time I met her, I've told this story before, I met her when she was recruiting for Harvard Law School.
	It was at the top of the W Hotel, very swanky, in Los Angeles, near the Westwood campus.
	And I went up there and she was sort of wandering around meeting all the students.
	And she realized that I was the guy who had written a book about college bias on campus.
	And she had said, well, I don't really think that there is liberal bias on college campus.
	Are you sure that's the case?
	And I was like, yeah, that's the case.
	And she said, oh, you're one of those Rush Limbaugh listeners, aren't you?
	And I said, have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh?
	And she was like, no.
	So that's sort of how our conversation started.
	That was the only really lengthy conversation I ever had with now-Senator Warren.
	But here's the thing.
	Way back in 2003-2004, which is when I met her, she was a much more interesting thinker.
	So this is the thing to understand about Elizabeth Warren.
	that because our politics now revolves around demonizing other people and government control, heterodox thinkers like Elizabeth Warren circa 2003 are no longer tolerated by homogenous thinkers circa Elizabeth Warren 2019.
	Elizabeth Warren 2019 is not Elizabeth Warren 2003.
	How do I know?
	Well, over the weekend, I read her book.
	She wrote this very famous book called The Two Income Trap in 2003.
	And the book is actually really, really interesting.
	She used to be sort of an interesting thinker.
	The two income trap is premised on this basic idea, which is that the number of females who had who had gone into bankruptcy had risen spectacularly over the past two or three decades, which she found kind of shocking because she figured, OK, well, it really should be a lot of males going into bankruptcy. which she found kind of shocking because she figured, OK, Yeah.
	After all, more females are entering the workforce, particularly mothers.
	And it wasn't just single moms.
	It was married moms who were going into bankruptcy.
	What she found is that there was something called the two income trap happening.
	The two income trap was basically a lot of women entered the workforce with the guarantee that they would now have two incomes in the family, which meant more money for everybody.
	And then what would happen is one person, they would then take out expenses that were commensurate with the combined salary of the couple.
	So let's say one half of the couple is making 50 grand, the other is making 50 grand, their combined income is now 100 grand.
	So they take out a mortgage on a house, That is commensurate with 100 grand income, and then one of them loses their job.
	Well, now they're in bankruptcy.
	So her actual point is that the same did not hold true if you had one income.
	So you have one income that's 50 grand and you take out expenses commensurate with that 50 grand, including getting a smaller house.
	Then the husband loses his job.
	We have a backup earner sort of in store in the woman.
	She would then enter the workforce and she'd make up like 60% of the salary while dad was looking for a job.
	Whereas if you are living on the edge of two salaries and there's no backup plan, you're basically screwed.
	That was the two income trap.
	And her suggestion was that so many women had entered the workforce that it had artificially increased prices on things like housing, particularly in the suburbs.
	It's a really interesting sort of take, right?
	I mean, she's not arguing women shouldn't be in the workforce, but she is arguing that women in the workforce does have an enormous number of unintended consequences and that maybe the couples that are best situated are actually the ones where only one member of the family is working.
	Because you're only going to take out expenses commensurate with one salary.
	A really, really interesting take.
	And not only is that take pretty interesting, she also talks about specific policy proposals.
	And her policy proposals are fairly interesting, including some fairly right-wing policy proposals.
	Right, she argued explicitly against more government regulation of the housing market.
	She slammed complex regulations since they, quote, might actually worsen the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older ones.
	Weird, because now her entire party is calling for rent control and government subsidized housing.
	Right, she favored against, instead of trying to place restrictions on housing building and caps on prices, she suggested a well-designed voucher program.
	That's right, Elizabeth Warren used to be a big fan of school vouchers, because she pointed out the reason that people were moving into suburbs was to get to better schools.
	And if you had school vouchers, then people from inner cities could actually go to those better schools, and that would allow more free transport of people to better schools, and that would bring down overall real estate prices.
	That's a very right-wing proposal.
	The heterodox policy proposals didn't actually stop there.
	She refused to, quote, join the chorus calling for taxpayer-funded daycare on its own.
	Right now, she says, oh, we need taxpayer-funded daycare for everybody.
	It's a great idea.
	It'll work out great.
	She actually called that a sacred cow in 2003.
	At the very least, she suggested that, quote, government-subsidized daycare would add one more indirect pressure on mothers to join the workforce.
	In other words, it removed the incentive for mom to stay home if the government was actually subsidizing daycare.
	So she suggested that it would have to be part of a broader comprehensive program, including tax credits for stay-at-home parents.
	In fact, she ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans.
	She said that we should not be subsidizing college loans.
	No more.
	Like now, she proposes that we remove all student debt, right?
	We pay off everybody's college loans.
	And now, she's coming out and then she was saying no taxpayer subsidization of college loans and no taxpayer spending on higher education directly.
	Instead, she called for a tuition freeze from state schools.
	She also recommended tax incentives for families to save rather than spend.
	Now she calls for a wealth tax.
	And now she said, she said then that it would be income graduated, it would be wealth graduated.
	But it cuts against the basic idea, right?
	She wants to actually incentivize saving.
	Now she wants to penalize savings.
	And this is my favorite quote from her book.
	She opposed radical solutions wholesale.
	This is a direct quote from Elizabeth Warren circa 2003.
	Secretary 2003 quote, we haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure.
	We haven't demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker, nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi socialist safety net to rival the European model.
	Direct quote from Elizabeth Warren 2003.
	Does this sound like Elizabeth Warren 2019?
	No, it doesn't.
	She wrote a new intro for this book in 2016 with her daughter, because the book is written with her daughter, and now it is just boilerplate Democratic pap.
	Why?
	Because Elizabeth Warren understands that creative solutions are not possible in a country where we don't trust one another.
	That when you mistrust your neighbor, that the only solution is absolute power.
	And so Elizabeth Warren has opted for absolute power, just like the rest of the Democratic Party.
	She has opted for top-down government control in every area because half the solutions she's calling for rely on you trusting your neighbor and suggesting your neighbor isn't a bad person.
	So she has jettisoned that.
	Now, she is in full-scale, your neighbor's a bad person territory.
	And if they stray, then we clock them.
	That is not an inherently sympathetic position to other Americans.
	It's amazing that so many on the left can portray themselves as sympathetic to their fellow Americans, when their actual proposal is that other Americans for making free choices ought to be punished in a general way, and the government ought to cram down.
	And if you even have conversations across the aisle in the most extreme cases of the left, then you should be punished just for those conversations.
	Elizabeth Warren used to be an interesting character.
	She's no longer interesting, which is why she's now seen as a front runner for the Democratic Party nomination.
	Elizabeth Warren circa 2003 was actually kind of interesting.
	2019, she's boring as mud.
	Her new ideas are Bernie Sanders' ideas, and they're just as bad.
	Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then a quick thing that I hate.
	Okay, so things that I like today.
	So, I have to give credit to this Florida man.
	There's always a Florida man.
	And he was talking about how to fight hurricanes.
	And he was suggesting, well, you know, people keep saying that warming waters are making the velocity of hurricanes faster because it's easier for the hurricane to churn off of the top layer of water because of the water temperature.
	He has an idea.
	Let him spell it out for you.
	I see how they haven't come up with some kind of way to combat these storms yet.
	They keep saying, you know, two days ago, three days ago, oh it's just, but it's going to hit all this warm weather.
	All this warm weather and warm water.
	We have a Navy.
	Why don't the Navy come and drop ice in the warm water so that it can't get going as fast as it's going.
	Oh, it's the warm weather.
	Oh, it's the wind.
	Well, we have an air force.
	Drive some air force planes around to get the winds going the opposite way.
	Um, yeah.
	So that's a solution.
	I mean, listen, we can make fun of this guy all day, but we know he'll be president by 2024, so we should really watch ourselves here.
	I mean, at the very least, it's a better solution than nuking the hurricane.
	So, I mean, I'm not against it.
	Maybe that was President Trump's original plan.
	He was actually going to buy Greenland, and then he was going to ship it.
	I don't know.
	You don't know.
	glacier into the hurricane pathway just to stop those hurricanes.
	I don't know.
	You don't know.
	He's a creative thinker.
	Okay.
	Other things that I like today.
	So there is a very good editorial in the Washington Post today by a Chinese dissident named Chen Guangcheng.
	He's a member of the faculty of the Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America.
	And he talks about President Trump and his stance against China.
	He says, as someone who has spent years with the knife edge of the Chinese Communist Party bearing down on my throat for my human rights work, I know the president is on to something.
	Tariffs and economic threats may be blunt tools, but they are the kind of aggressive tactics necessary to get the attention of the CCP regime, which respects only power and money.
	It's not just about winning, as the president sometimes puts it, and it's not simply about trade.
	It's about justice.
	It's about doing what's right for ordinary Chinese and American people.
	Presidents before Trump naively believed that China would abide by international standards of behavior if it were granted access to institutions like the WTO, and generally treated as a normal country.
	But that path proved mistaken.
	Beijing ignored Western pressure on matters from human rights to the widespread theft of intellectual property.
	Trump, whatever his flaws, grasps this reality.
	That is the truth, and the media basically refused to acknowledge it, so at least good for the Washington Post for printing this particular op-ed by Chen Guangcheng.
	You know, I think we are actually out of time.
	So we're going to skip the things that I hate today because it's a love-filled day, guys.
	And we'll be back here a little bit later today with many more things that I hate, two additional hours of things that I hate later today.
	Or we'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Adam Sievitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

▲