Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 6, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:07

Can Democrats Scold Their Way To Glory? | Ep. 855

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We examine the brand new economic report.
	Democrats say Americans are the problem, so vote Democrat.
	And President Trump clings to his story about Hurricane Dorian and plays with Sharpies.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	All righty, we have a lot to get to today.
	There is a new study out about the collapse of marriage, and it suggests that economics has something to do with that.
	I think economics does have something to do with it, but I think the problem goes a lot deeper.
	We'll get to that a little bit later on in the show.
	We will also be getting to President Trump's bizarre fixation with how correct he was about the storm path of a storm that didn't go anywhere remotely near where he said it was going to go.
	Who cares?
	Why are we still on this?
	Well, because the president doesn't let those sorts of things go.
	We'll get to all that in just one second.
	First, we begin with the August jobs report.
	So according to the New York Times, the United States added 130,000 jobs in August.
	The unemployment rate remains at 3.7%, meaning that the economy remains strong.
	The figures show that the economy continues to add jobs despite the trade war and a global showdown.
	What we are seeing is a trend line that looks like it is headed down since the beginning of 2019 in terms of job growth.
	We've had a couple of very bad months.
	We had February, which is a very bad month, and then we had a couple of months later, looks like May was a very bad month.
	We've had some okay months mixed in, but overall, it looks as though the economy is slowing.
	Now, it doesn't mean recession is around the corner.
	It does mean That the economy is going to be slower, it looks like, headed into 2020, which of course is not great news for President Trump.
	According to the New York Times, the American economy turned in a decent performance last month as businesses grew more cautious about hiring, according to the Labor Department's monthly employment report released on Friday.
	About 25,000 of the jobs added were temporary position for the 2020 census.
	When you remove those jobs, then the job growth looks even slower.
	Now, does this mean we are in economic spiral?
	Doom is upon us.
	No, it means that a lot of people have a lot of trepidation about the future of the economy and they're not doing a lot of long term hiring right now in the expectation that sometime in 2020, 2021, we may see an economic downturn.
	And that's not a surprise because we've been seeing those indicators systemically coming from China, coming from Europe.
	For several months at this point, along with consumer spending, the labor market has been a source of stability for the economy, even as several gauges have turned downward and trade anxieties have mounted.
	But in August, the private sector added 96,000 jobs, weaker than the pace so far in 2019, and an indication that businesses are becoming a little more reluctant to add headcount.
	The report also revised down job gains for June and July by a total of 20,000, which, you know, going back and having to revise down numbers is never great.
	Paul Ashworth is the chief U.S.
	economist at Capital Economics.
	He said the headline number in August was flattered by the big increase in census hiring.
	He says even allowing for that, there's been a clear slowdown in trend employment growth, with the three-month and six-month averages both at around 150,000 now, down from about 230,000 a year ago.
	But there were positive signs elsewhere in the report.
	The labor force participation rate did rise to 63.2% from 63%, suggesting that workers who had been on the sidelines are gradually being lured back into the labor market.
	And average hourly earnings did increase by 0.4%, which is actually more than analysts had expected, which suggests, again, when you have wage increases, that suggests that the demand for labor is exceeding the supply for labor by 0.4% in terms of wages.
	The length of the average work week also increased after falling in July.
	So there's some mixed numbers right now.
	It looks like the economy is sort of on the brink of something, right?
	It could be on the brink of another slow growth cycle.
	It could be on the brink of a slow downturn.
	It could be on the brink of a recession over the course of the next couple of years.
	Businesses don't know, and so they're holding back their money.
	A good piece of news for President Trump.
	That economic report is not bad for Trump.
	It's okay for Trump.
	It's just not spectacular for Trump.
	A good piece of news for President Trump is that the markets were up pretty significantly yesterday.
	According to the New York Times, President Trump's decision to renew talks with China in the coming weeks sent financial markets soaring on Thursday As investors seized on the development as a sign that both sides could still find a way out of an economically damaging trade war.
	The rally sent the S&P 500 up more than 1%, underscoring just how much financial markets are subsisting on hopes and fears about the trade war.
	Shares fell through most of August as Mr. Trump escalated his fight with China and imposed more tariffs only to snap back on Thursday after news of the talks.
	But expectations for progress remain low.
	Many in the US and China see the best outcome as a continued stalemate that would prevent a collapse in relations.
	Before the 2020 election.
	And that is probably the most likely outcome because the fact is that the United States is not going to cut a long-term trade deal with China, not under the current conditions in which China is a serious geopolitical enemy of the United States.
	And characterizing China this way is not a partisan affair.
	The left in the United States is similarly beginning to recognize that China is a geopolitical threat to the United States and that harsh action is necessary.
	Nicholas Kristof, who is a very left-leaning columnist for the New York Times, has a piece today talking about how China is ramping up its military presence around Taiwan, about how they've escalated their cyber attacks on Taiwan, about how China is becoming more militant.
	I mean, he even acknowledges that President Trump's policies on Taiwan are better than his predecessors.
	I mean, this is Nicholas Kristof, who is no friend of Trump.
	He says President Trump has generally been more supportive of Taiwan than his predecessors, and that's worked well so far, but this has to be done very carefully.
	But he points out Beijing has been really attacking Taiwan's capabilities.
	That China has been stepping up its military pressure by increasing patrols in the area, that they could hold military exercise in the area.
	Taiwan's Foreign Minister Joseph Wu said, quote, we are very concerned.
	He said one concern was that a slowing economy and other troubles in China might lead Xi to make trouble for Taiwan as a distraction.
	This is the scenario that is constantly playing on the minds of the key decision makers on Taiwan, he said.
	So what that means is that the most likely outcome is indeed some sort of stalemate in terms of the United States and China that allows for continued economic growth up through the 2020 election, although it won't be booming in the same way that it would be if we weren't in the middle of a trade war with one of our largest trading partners.
	And again, I think there are very good reasons to get into a trade war with China based on China's aggression on 5G, based on their aggression in terms of their Belt and Road Project, based on their aggression in terms of naval presence in the South China Sea, and their aggression in Hong Kong, and their aggression against Taiwan.
	Those are all good reasons for us to take a very skeptical view of relations with China overall.
	We just have to acknowledge that that will Dampen growth a little bit going in more than a little bit, probably going into 2020.
	Now, in just a second, we're going to talk about the vulnerability for Democrats, because right now would seem like a pretty good time for Democrats.
	President Trump is not popular in terms of his overall approval rating.
	The Democratic Party is seeing significant gains in the polls in states like Wisconsin and states like Texas.
	Wouldn't this be a great time for the Democratic Party?
	Well, they've got one problem, and that's they can't get out of their own way.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about improving the employees at your company.
	So let's be frank.
	I could get here on time more often for my podcast.
	We've been starting a little bit late for this podcast nearly every day, and there are a variety of excuses I could make to you, but the truth is that if I were the most rigid kind of boss, I would fire me and replace me.
	But let's be honest, I'm not replaceable.
	But if I were, I would be looking to ZipRecruiter to replace me.
	I mean, I can promise you we didn't find Michael Moulse through ZipRecruiter.
	Like, I'd be looking for an actual good host to replace me via ZipRecruiter.com.
	Go check out ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter will send your job posting to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
	As the applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each and every one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective.
	That four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
	Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	And so if ever I decide that I can no longer be trusted to even do the podcast, let alone get here on time, I will be looking to ZipRecruiter for my own replacement.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	We always enjoy our ZipRecruiter ads because somebody has to draw the short straw in terms of who is going to get nailed by the ZipRecruiter ad.
	Today, it was I. So ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire if you wish to upgrade your employees.
	Okay, so.
	Why is it that the polls are not better for Democrats in terms of favorability?
	And there's a shocking new YouGov poll, Economist YouGov poll, taken between September 1st and 3rd.
	And it's kind of fascinating because what it shows is that both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders actually have lower favorability ratings than President Trump in the new YouGov poll.
	Biden's favorable and unfavorables in this poll are 42% favorable, 51% unfavorable for a net negative 9.
	Bernie's are 42 and 50 for a net negative 8.
	negative nine.
	Bernie's are 42 and 50 for a net negative eight.
	Trump's are 46 and 52 for a net negative seven.
	This is that's bizarre.
	I mean, that is a bizarre result.
	So why are Democrats not more popular?
	Why are Democrats not more popular?
	Like, Trump makes himself quite vulnerable.
	As we will see, President Trump has a habit of stepping on his own, you know.
	But, you know, the fact is that the Democrats are not making themselves popular.
	Well, one reason they're not making themselves popular is their pitch seems to be something like this.
	Americans, you suck.
	You're terrible.
	There are certain groups of Americans that are probably okay.
	They've been historically victimized.
	But all the rest of you, you suck.
	And even the ones who are members of groups that are historically victimized, let's be real about this, you kind of suck also.
	Because after all, you are consuming the world's resources.
	After all, you're believers in cruel, horrible religion.
	After all, you're people who are hypocrites and terrible.
	The new Puritans all are in the Democratic Party.
	It really is an impressive thing.
	I've been knocked before for being, quote unquote, a religious fundamentalist, which is always kind of hilarious to me, considering I wrote an entire book about the necessity for balance between religion and faith and how they support each other and buttress each other rather than splitting everything apart.
	But the case that fundamentalism lies on the right is belied by the religious fundamentalism of the left about politics.
	The way that the Democrats talk about politics these days, it's sinners in the hands of an angry God.
	I mean, we have full Jonathan Edwards talk about modern American politics.
	You Americans have sinned and you must atone.
	And this is how you end up with a seven hour climate change town hall in which the Democrats claim that like religious figures of old, they are going to ban all the things.
	They're going to set up their own set of commandments and they're going to ban all the things.
	Here are Democrats just two nights ago talking about how all the things will be banned, all of them.
	Let's talk about offshore drilling for oil.
	Would you ban it?
	Yes.
	We will transition off of fossil fuels.
	Natural gas, coal, oil.
	What about the export of fossil fuels from the United States?
	Would you ban that?
	Absolutely, we must get to that point.
	There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.
	I'm in favor of a carbon-free America.
	In my administration, we're not going to build any new nuclear power plants.
	We set out the rules for what kind of coal-burning plants.
	No one's going to build another coal-burning plant.
	We've got to shut the ones down we have.
	We're going to end factory farming because that is not only, that is a danger to the environment and to climate change.
	We're going to ban all the things, all the things that must be banned.
	But they go further than this.
	The most fundamentalist Democrat in the race, and this is a big shock to me, it really is.
	Because you didn't start off his candidacy this way.
	The angriest dude on the Democratic side of the aisle, the woke scold of woke scold, is actually Pete Buttigieg.
	So Pete Buttigieg started off this race, and he was a much more interesting candidate.
	He was this sort of interesting purple state governor.
	He's in Indiana.
	He's trying to reach across the aisles of Republicans.
	He says he'll eat at Chick-fil-A.
	He knows a lot about issues.
	He can talk really well.
	He didn't seem like the kind of guy who is going to go full on, I'm going to lecture you like an angry schoolmarm.
	It seemed more like an Elizabeth Warren candidacy.
	And Warren has that, but Buttigieg has it in spades.
	I mean, it's pretty impressive.
	So Pete Buttigieg goes even further.
	It's not just that he, like many other Democrats, wants to ban all the things.
	He wants to blame you.
	You're part of the problem, you see.
	You.
	I mean, literally you.
	Here is Pete Buttigieg on CNN.
	Who is now going to lecture you on all the things that you do wrong because you are an imperfect human being and thus must be blamed for all of the problems on earth.
	Right now, we're in a mode where we're, I think we're thinking about it mostly through the perspective of guilt, you know, from using a straw to eating a burger.
	Am I part of the problem?
	In a certain way, yes.
	But the most exciting thing is that we can all be part of the solution.
	In a certain way, yes.
	In a certain way, you are part of the problem.
	But we can all be part of the solution.
	I'm offering you a path to repentance.
	Just follow my political agenda.
	So you see, you're a sinner.
	Repentance comes in the form of voting for me.
	Right?
	It's like old school.
	Talk about Catholic indulgences, right?
	Like you sin and now you must pay this indulgence to the church and then everything will be fine.
	And this is how the Democrats see that you vote for higher taxes and you have partaken of the indulgence.
	You acknowledge your white privilege, you have partaken of the indulgence.
	And Buttigieg does this over and over and over again.
	So here's Pete Buttigieg talking about Christians, right?
	So it's not just that you are part of the problem if you eat hamburgers or you use straws.
	Also, Pete Buttigieg is going to lecture you about religions.
	When I say that Democrats have become the religious fundamentalists, Pete Buttigieg is speaking the language of religious fundamentalism.
	He's just doing it from the left right here.
	For as long as there has been faith and as long as there has been politics, there have been different understandings on the right thing to do and how these things fit together.
	But for the party and the movement known for beating other people on the head with their faith or their interpretation of their faith, it makes no sense to literally vote to take food away from the hungry, to essentially be practicing the very thing to essentially be practicing the very thing that not just a Christian scriptural tradition, but so many others tell us we're not supposed to do in terms of harming other people.
	And I do think there's going to be a reckoning over that.
	As it turns out, it's not Mayor Pete, it's Pastor Pete.
	There will be a reckoning.
	God's wrath will descend on you if you don't vote for Pete Buttigieg and his policies.
	You must feel ashamed.
	You must be scolded.
	And lest you think I'm exaggerating this, listen to Pete Buttigieg talk about global warming.
	He's talking about this.
	He was on, I guess, late night TV and he was talking about this specifically in the context of religion.
	Again, in the same way that you might hear your preacher talk about God being unhappy with the United States on abortion, but he says it's about global warming.
	So you're going to have to explain to me the distinction.
	Environmental stewardship isn't just about taking care of the planet.
	It's taking care of our neighbor.
	We're supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves.
	And the biggest problem with climate change isn't just that it's going to hurt the planet.
	I mean, in some way, shape, or form, the planet's still going to be here.
	It's that we are hurting people.
	People who are alive right now and people who will be born in the future.
	The way I see it, I don't imagine that God's going to let us off the hook.
	for abusing future generations any more than you would be off the hook for harming somebody right next to you.
	And with climate change, we're doing both.
	Pastor Pete, wow.
	But don't worry, guys.
	He is woke, so this is okay, right?
	He's allowed to speak the language of religious fundamentalism and scold you and make you feel guilty and try and shame you into the precepts of his political religion by invoking God.
	And he does it over and over and over again.
	He did it again last night.
	He talked about the Bible welcomes the stranger.
	If any Republican invoked the Bible as much on the campaign trail as Pastor Pete does, then they would rightly be seen as a religious fanatic trying to invoke God and the Bible on a routine basis in order to push their policies.
	Pete Buttigieg does it and the left is like, why?
	Because the left has its own religion.
	It's usually in the form of secular politics.
	What's fun for them and sort of pranky for them is the fact that Pete Buttigieg is trying to take God and the Bible and then use it against the very people who typically cite God and biblical values as the basis for their own root values.
	So the left seems to see Pastor Pete as some sort of a mole inside the religious camp.
	But the truth is that he's more of a troll.
	But that trollery is not in fact funny and it's not interesting.
	And it is part of a broader left-wing viewpoint, which is that everybody has to be shamed into doing what you want, and they should be shamed by the forces of corporate homogeneity.
	They should be forced to do what you want by the force of government, if that can be achieved.
	Here's Pastor Pete again, citing the Bible.
	As we see some of these figures on the religious right embrace behavior, and I think policies, but definitely behavior, that flies in the face, not just of my values, but of their own, then it reminds me of all of the parts of scripture where there's a lot about hypocrisy.
	And I think we have an obligation to call that out and to speak about how, you know, not just the Christian faith tradition that I belong to, but pretty much any religious or non-religious moral tradition I've ever heard of, tells us that it's really important how we treat the least among us, the most vulnerable, the marginalized, that we are obliged to serve the poor and heal the sick and clothe the naked and welcome the stranger.
	Stranger, by the way, being another word for immigrant.
	And that what we're seeing right now in the White House is the opposite.
	See, you're a bad Christian.
	So Mayor Pete's pitch as the sort of id of the Democratic Party now, which is amazing, is that you are a bad Christian if you disagree with him, that you have sinned if you eat hamburgers or use straws.
	This is the new religion.
	That you will face a reckoning if you don't agree with him on global warming.
	And that if you disagree with him on immigration, it's because you have offended God as represented by Pastor Pete or Pope Pete.
	It's pretty impressive stuff.
	As I say, there's an easy indulgence that you can receive from Pastor Pete, and that is simply to support the Democratic Party agenda.
	And you see this over and over among actual top-notch Democrats.
	What they will do is they say, well, I've paid my indulgence, don't you see?
	I vote Democrat.
	I support.
	Carbon taxes that will never be implemented.
	I support bans on various things that will never be banned.
	I support all these things that will never... That is my indulgence.
	I'm not going to do it myself.
	I'm not actually going to undertake doing any of these things myself.
	Instead, I'm going to mouth support for these broader principles that buy me off We'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about that cell phone plan.
	So, let's be real about this.
	You're spending too much on your cell phone coverage.
	going to stop flying to Bill de Blasio, who continues to take an SUV to his gym.
	We'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about that cell phone plan.
	So let's be real about this.
	You're spending too much on your cell phone coverage, like a lot too much on your cell phone coverage.
	Why?
	Well, you probably bought that unlimited data package.
	Do you really use unlimited data on your phone?
	Or are you paying for unlimited data and then just using a fraction of it and paying way too much money?
	You don't have to do that anymore.
	You need Mint Mobile.
	Mint Mobile provides the same premium network coverage you're used to, but at a fraction of the cost.
	Mint Mobile makes it easy to cut your wireless bill down to just 15 bucks a month.
	Every plan comes with unlimited nationwide talk and text.
	With Mint Mobile, you can stop paying for unlimited data you'll never use.
	Choose between plans with 3, 8, or 12 gigabytes of 4G LTE data.
	Use your own phone.
	With any Mint Mobile plan, keep your same phone number along with all your existing contacts.
	You can ditch your old wireless bill and start saving with Mint Mobile right now.
	Mint Mobile makes everything incredibly easy for you.
	They'll transfer your number over and you keep the same phone number and the whole deal.
	So get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, which will save you a bundle.
	And get the plan shipped to your door for free.
	Go to mintmobile.com slash ben.
	That's M-I-N-T-M-O-B-I-L-E.
	Mintmobile.com slash ben.
	Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month.
	Mintmobile.com slash ben.
	Use that slash ben to let them know we sent you and to get that special deal.
	Mintmobile.com slash ben.
	Okay, so, again, the beautiful thing about being a Democrat is that to partake in the religion does not require that you actually abide by its dictates.
	You just have to mouth support for its dictates.
	And that's how you end up with Tucker Carlson asking Bill de Blasio, if you're so worried about climate change, why are you taking an SUV to the gym?
	And de Blasio has no answer.
	How can you take an SUV to the gym and back every day and say that you're really worried about climate change?
	I know it's a petty question, but it's bugged me for years.
	It's a Chrysler Pacifica.
	It's a Pacifica.
	It's a hybrid electric.
	It's not an SUV, first of all.
	Oh, it's got a gas engine in it.
	I come from a neighborhood.
	I go back to my neighborhood all the time.
	It's the way to me that I stay connected to people, that I am able to have a routine that allows me to be 24-7 the best mayor I can be.
	But should the climate have to pay the cost for that?
	Oh, come on.
	It's a few miles.
	Oh, come on!
	And Tucker, here's the great part about all this.
	What do you mean?
	Oh, come on!
	I'm going to use that next time I get lectured about climate change.
	Oh, come on!
	And by the way, Bernie Sanders does the same exact thing as de Blasio, right?
	The oh-come-on routine.
	But it's okay for the left, because Bill de Blasio cares, don't you see?
	He cares.
	And it's the caring that matters.
	It's the lecturing that matters.
	It's being part of the woke-skulled brigade.
	So you're either going to be the target of the woke-skulled brigade, or you're going to be part of the woke-skulled brigade.
	You're either with us, or you're against us.
	And that's going to become a very unpopular agenda.
	I can already see it among young people.
	I think there are a lot of generations here who are looking around and going, this is not a world I wish to occupy, where I am seen as either a part of the woke-skulled brigade and the woke-skulled religious fervor, or I'm their target.
	And you're starting to see this have blowback.
	It's having blowback in the world of comedy with Dave Chappelle and people like Aziz Ansari.
	It's having blowback in Hollywood.
	There's a fascinating piece in the New York Times today called Why I Quit the Writer's Room by a guy named Walter Mosley.
	I never heard of Walter Mosley.
	It turns out that Walter Mosley is a novelist, screenwriter, and executive producer and writer on FX's Snowfall and the author, most recently, of Elements of Fiction.
	He has a piece today all about him quitting a writer's room because the corporate woke scolds have now decided they're going to cram down the religious rules of the woke scold left.
	Because here's how the system works.
	A bunch of woke scolds get together and they decide that they're going to out people and hurt people and damage people's careers and damage corporations based on bad old tweets.
	You have sinned and you must repent.
	And the corporations cave because the corporations are risk averse.
	And so they actually take the woke scold agenda and then they enshrine it in corporate bylaws.
	They enshrine it in their HR practices.
	And then it turns out that there's no flexibility in those practices.
	So when somebody who's a member of the left sins against The hierarchy that the left itself has created, they must pay.
	And this is exactly what happened to Walter Mosley.
	He says, earlier this year, I had just finished with the Snowfall writer's room for the season when I took a similar job on a different show at a different network.
	I'd been in the new room for a few weeks when I got a call from Human Resources.
	A pleasant sounding young man said, Mr. Mosley, it has been reported that you use the N-word in the writer's room.
	I replied, I am the N-word in the writer's room.
	He's a black guy.
	He said very nicely that I could not use that word except in a script.
	I could write it, but I could not say it.
	Me, a man whose people in America have been, among other things, slandered by many words.
	But I could no longer use that particular word to describe the environs of my experience.
	I have to stop with the forward thrust of this story to say that I had indeed said the word in the room.
	I hadn't called anyone it.
	I just told a story about a cop who explained to me on the streets of LA that he stopped all n-words in patty neighborhoods and all patties in n-word neighborhoods because they were usually up to no good.
	I was telling a true story as I remembered it.
	Someone in the room, I have no idea who, called HR and said that my use of the word made them uncomfortable, and the HR rep called to inform me that such language was unacceptable to my employers.
	I couldn't use that word in common parlance, even to express an experience I lived through.
	There I was, a black man in America, who shares with millions of others the history of racism, and more often than not, treated it as subhuman.
	If addressed at all, that history had to be rendered in words my employers regarded as acceptable.
	There I was being chastised for criticising the word that oppressed me and mine for centuries.
	As far as I know, the word is in the dictionary.
	As far as I know, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights assure me of both the freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness.
	Hey, he is right.
	And you can see the political awakening beginning.
	The Democratic Party is trying to formalize the rules of political correctness, implement them from above, in both governmental and corporate terms, and people are beginning to buck against that system.
	You wonder why the Democrats aren't able to pull ahead of a very unpopular president like President Trump?
	This would be the reason.
	This would be the reason.
	They've set up a standard that is unlivable, even for folks on the left.
	I'll give you another example of this in just one second from the University of Alabama.
	First, let's talk about September.
	September, it happens to be, is National Life Insurance Awareness Month.
	You probably weren't aware of that.
	Well, now you are, because I just raised your awareness of National Life Insurance Awareness Month.
	Well, now that you're aware, why don't you do something about it and stop wasting time?
	Just go be an adult!
	Hey, if you ship plots tomorrow, you want to make sure that your family is taken care of.
	And this is where life insurance comes in.
	But 40% of Americans don't actually have life insurance.
	Why?
	Well, because it's a pain in the butt.
	You don't know where to buy it.
	You don't know if you're getting the best plan.
	PolicyGenius now makes it easier than ever to get you 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 Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape.
	And Policy Genius doesn't just make life insurance easy.
	They can also help you find the right home insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance.
	Policy Genius makes it super simple to get life insurance so you don't have any more excuses.
	And now that you're aware of it being National Life Insurance Awareness Month, we've made you aware Go do the responsible thing and be a responsible human.
	Go to PolicyGenius.com right now.
	Get quotes.
	Apply in minutes.
	Make sure you are not buried in a pauper's grave and leave your family penniless.
	You can do the whole thing on your phone, like right this very instant.
	PolicyGenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	Go check them out right now at PolicyGenius.com.
	Okay, another example of the woke, scold, left standard coming back to bite them directly in the ass.
	So there's this guy named Jamie Riley.
	He's the University of Alabama Assistant Vice President and Dean of Students.
	He has now resigned his position on Thursday after less than seven months on the job.
	Why?
	Well, Breitbart News published an article detailing images of past tweets from Riley in which he criticized the American flag and made a connection between police and racism.
	According to Jackson Fuentes, the press secretary for the University of Alabama Student Government Association, they confirmed that Riley is no longer working at the university.
	Fuentes said, So yeah, that's true.
	And we do wish him the best.
	Apparently he resigned his position.
	So yeah, that's true.
	And we do wish him the best.
	Apparently he resigned his position.
	So what exactly did this professor actually tweet out?
	He tweeted out back in 2017, September of 2017.
	The American flag represents a systemic history of racism for my people.
	Police are a part of that system.
	Is it that hard to see the correlation?
	And then he also tweeted, I'm baffled about how the first thing white people say is that's not racist when they can't even experience racism.
	You have zero opinion.
	Hashtag miss me with your privilege.
	And then he also sent a tweet saying, are movies about slavery truly about educating the unaware or to remind black people of our place in society?
	Okay, these are all radical tweets, right?
	I mean, these are things that I disagree with.
	I think they are morally wrong.
	Should he lose his job as assistant vice president and dean of students because he has some old tweets that I find offensive?
	I think the answer is no.
	But the world the left has created is a world without forgiveness.
	And if the right decides to apply those same rules to people on the left, well, then this is the world the left has created.
	And I think more and more people are tired of these rules.
	I think more and more people Believe that these rules are terrible, that they're bad for America, that they're bad for the country, that the woke scolding of the left is tiresome and annoying, and that Trump was the middle finger to that.
	So if this becomes a battle between Pastor Pete and his schoolmarmish lecturing of you about your own personal morality, and Donald Trump and his freewheeling, I'll say anything, I don't really care.
	The American people are not up for more Pastor Pete-ing.
	And they're not.
	They're not up for more shaming and guilting.
	Not about things that they don't deserve to be shamed or guilted over, like believing in basic biblical precepts, or disagreeing with Mayor Pete over immigration policy, or wanting to see an actual plan for climate change that doesn't involve destroying the United States economy while China sails along on the shoals of carbon emissions.
	And so I think that this is why the Democrats are having trouble with popularity.
	Now, again, it's like this election, this 2020 election, is a game of hold my beer.
	There's this meme online where it's like somebody's doing something stupid.
	You're like, well, that that other person couldn't do something as stupid as that.
	And the other person's like, well, hold my beer.
	That's what's going on right now.
	So Trump is constantly saying, tweeting things that damage himself.
	And then the Democrats are like, hold my beer, let's do a seven hour climate change extravaganza where we talk about banning cows and air travel.
	And then Trump is like, wait, no, you hold my beer.
	And then he's like, you know what I'm gonna do?
	I'm gonna do like a four-day controversy over whether I was originally right to have suggested that Hurricane Dorian might make landfall in Alabama.
	You're like, wait, what?
	Why is that a good idea?
	Is that something we really have to do?
	And the answer, according to Trump, is yes, because never back down, never compromise, never suggest that you could possibly have got nothing wrong.
	Like, why couldn't Trump have just said, listen, got it wrong.
	I was given information that Dorian might make landfall in Alabama.
	I tweeted that out at the time.
	It turns out it was wrong.
	Listen to the National Weather Service.
	Look how easy that was.
	We solved the crisis in 15 seconds.
	But President Trump's like, no, not gonna do that.
	Not interested.
	So he has now tweeted, about Hurricane Dorian repeatedly, repeatedly, right?
	Because he is trying to suggest that he was always right when he was talking about the projected path of Hurricane Dorian.
	This became a big controversy because there was a because President Trump did a press conference on September 4th, holding up a map of Hurricane Dorian, and it showed its projected storm path or possible storm path hitting Florida.
	And he had tweeted out that it might hit Alabama, too.
	So what did he do?
	I mean, the supposition is that President Trump personally took a sharpie.
	He loves sharpies.
	He took a sharpie and he actually drew A larger storm path for the storm on the map.
	Now, to me, this is funny because, look, human beings are flawed.
	Human beings have foibles.
	President Trump has plenty of them.
	Am I really going to be, like, super offended that this man is very thin-skinned and arrogant and can't abide the fact that he made a mistake?
	No.
	I mean, like, if you don't know that by now, you haven't been watching closely enough or you're blind or you're stupid or whatever.
	But the fact is, It's a little funny, isn't it?
	The media decided to make this an all-out war.
	How could Trump alter the hurricane map?
	He's violated federal law!
	Impeach!
	It's like, oh my god, so he's, so now they're just throwing the beer back and forth.
	They're both covered in beer.
	It's like that scene at the beginning of Zoolander where everybody's shooting each other with gasoline and then somebody, we're just waiting for somebody to light the match at this point.
	We're having a big gas fight.
	And then we're just gonna light a match and everybody's gonna explode.
	Because Trump's like, here, hold my beer.
	And Democrats are like, here, hold our beer.
	And now they're all covered in beer.
	Everybody's covered in beer.
	Okay, well, it's all so stupid and yet hilarious.
	We'll talk about it in just one second.
	First, let's talk about sleep quality.
	So as you know, I talk about sleep quality a lot on the show because I am not a good sleeper.
	I'm good at some things, I am bad at other things.
	One of the things I am particularly bad at is sleep.
	Well, one of the things that makes my sleep possible Is my bull and branch sheets.
	Everything bull and branch makes from bedding to blankets is made from pure 100% organic cotton.
	You don't know that you've been sleeping in bad sheets all your life until you try bull and branch sheets, which are actually excellent.
	They're so good that once I got bull and branch sheets in my home, I actually threw out all my other sheets because it ruined all the other sheets for me.
	I realized I was basically sleeping on a tarp.
	And then you get bull and branch sheets.
	Like, oh my God, this is what sheets should feel like.
	They start out super soft.
	They get even softer over time.
	You buy directly from them.
	So you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
	Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store.
	Bull and branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
	That's not expensive for luxury sheets.
	And also, you're sleeping on them simply every night.
	Shipping is free.
	You can try them for 30 nights.
	There is no risk, no reason not to give them a try.
	Try bull and branch sheets today.
	You will indeed love them.
	I know I do.
	To get you started, right now, my listeners get 50 bucks Off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Go to bullandbranch.com today.
	You get 50 bucks off that first set of sheets.
	That is bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	B-O-L-L-N-B-R-A-N-C-H dot com, promo code Ben.
	All righty.
	Well, we're going to get to more of President Trump and Hurricane Dorian, and then a fascinating new study that talks about the economics of marriage and how those have shifted over time.
	We'll get to all of that in just a moment.
	First, you have to go to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	Why should you do this thing?
	Well, not only with the annual subscriptions, you get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels for $99 a year.
	Also, you get early access to our Sunday special.
	Our Sunday special this week features Brian Keating, who's a professor over at University of California, San Diego in cosmology.
	We discuss everything from the Big Bang to multiple universe theory.
	It really is, I think, fascinating.
	I love doing the Sunday special.
	I get to talk to interesting people.
	I think some of the conversations on there are just top-notch.
	This one, I think, is really fascinating for folks who like science, are interested in religion and the beginnings of the universe.
	Here's a little sample.
	When you talk about, you know, is something science, does it follow the centuries-old scientific method?
	Which actually traces back to my intellectual hero Galileo.
	Now, Galileo made some huge whoppers.
	I mean, he believed that, you know, certain crazy things about the universe that we now know are false.
	And it's too bad, because he could have had a good career.
	You ain't gotta cancel all the scientists.
	That's the new thing, by the way.
	There was this big story.
	Did you see that story about Rachel Maddow apparently walking into some sort of symposium where scientists were being awarded and she said, what's up with the dude wall?
	And they actually took down the pictures of the scientists because Rachel Maddow complained that too many men were being good at science.
	We may be done as a country.
	Okay, well, you should go subscribe.
	There's all sorts of good stuff happening over at dailywire.com.
	There'll be more very good stuff in the future, like we're relaunching the website.
	That's a thing that is happening.
	There'll be more benefits for subscribers behind the paywall, more contact with me, if that's a thing that you desperately want.
	There's all sorts of good stuff.
	Also, you help protect us against the nastiness of the left, which, as we say, is seeking to destroy all in its path.
	You protect shows that you love when you subscribe, so please join the team over at dailywire.com.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So as I say, President Trump, all he should be doing is the Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers face.
	He should just be screaming and pointing at Democrats.
	Instead, we get a week-long news cycle because he won't let go of the fact that he was not correct about the path of a hurricane that has already made landfall.
	It turned the other way, dude.
	But Trump won't let go of it.
	He's like, just as I said, Alabama was originally projected to be hit.
	The fake news denies it.
	No, what they're saying is that you were informed that the hurricane was going to move, and then you put, with a sharpie, more of the hurricane going in the wrong direction, and then maintained that.
	So, a couple things can be true.
	One, the media are wildly overblowing this.
	I mean, literally, members of the media are like, it's impeachable!
	Doesn't this show how terrible he is?
	I mean, it's a crisis, it's a crisis!
	He took a sharpie and he put it on a map, and it's a crisis!
	It's not a crisis.
	Here's Chris Cuomo.
	The dumber of the Cuomo brothers.
	We're not allowed to call him Fredo because that's the F word.
	Okay, but Chris Cuomo, he says that President Trump, he doesn't care about people dying in hurricanes.
	He only cares about defending his silly claim about where the hurricane is going.
	Yeah, you're right.
	I'm sure that FEMA has suspended all resource allocation because Trump is using a Sharpie.
	You are literally in the middle of a hurricane.
	And this president is all about defending himself and his erroneous claim.
	Fake maps, compelling people to justify his claims, and not really focusing on the people who should be getting help, which is what a leader does.
	Oh, he's just fighting back.
	Against what?
	The truth?
	Even if he were right and he was wrong.
	You really think this was the time and this is the way for a president to act?
	Okay, I mean, are we really gonna go down this path?
	I love when the media are like, he's so unpresidential, it's unprecedented.
	Yeah, we know.
	We know, man!
	I don't know what to tell you.
	Welcome to reality, where Donald Trump is president.
	Were you unaware that he's a man named Donald Trump who is also Donald Trump?
	Are we supposed to be surprised by this?
	Two things can be simultaneously true.
	One, this is particularly stupid.
	Two, the media making a big deal out of Donald Trump being Donald Trump is extraordinarily tiresome.
	Because it's like me being surprised when my son fusses in the morning when I put on his shoes.
	Yeah, it's really irritating.
	Also, he does it every morning because he's three.
	Like, if Donald Trump tweets random crap, have we not adjusted to the fact that the President of the United States is a man who tweets random crap?
	Pretty sure we're all aware of this.
	Trump, of course, keeps doubling down.
	He says, But was that all?
	No, that was not all!
	of the hurricane in the early stages.
	As you can see, almost all models predicted it to go through Florida and also hitting Georgia and Alabama.
	I accept the fake news apologies.
	But was that all?
	No, that was not all.
	There are nine tweets on this.
	Alabama was going to be hit or grazed.
	And then Hurricane Dorian took a different path, up along the East Coast.
	The fake news knows this very well.
	That's why they're the fake news.
	But wait, he's not done.
	In the early days of the hurricane, when it was predicted that Dorian would go through Miami or West Palm Beach, even before it reached the Bahamas, certain models strongly suggested that Alabama and Georgia would be hit as it made its way through Florida and to the Gulf.
	Instead, it turned north and went up the coast, where it continues now.
	In the one model through Florida, the great state Alabama would have been hit or grazed.
	In the path it took, no.
	Read my full FEMA statement.
	What I said was accurate, all fake news in order to demean.
	Okay, like, again, is this a grand allocation?
	Two things can be true.
	One, what Trump is saying about the original Storm Path warnings and all of that.
	There's some truth to that.
	Two, is this worth the allocation of resources?
	Three, are the media really going crazy over Trump being Trump?
	Like, Trump is Trump.
	We're all aware.
	We're all very much aware of the Trump being Trump.
	Is this a smart thing to do, however?
	No, it is not a smart thing to do.
	And so I guess this game of hold my beer will continue until the end of time or until 2020 election, whichever comes first.
	Meanwhile, there's a fascinating new study that I want to talk about today.
	It's really a really interesting new study.
	It's from researchers at Cornell University.
	They say marriage rates have steadily declined over the past few decades.
	Now researchers from Cornell University are offering up a possible explanation.
	There just aren't as many economically attractive men for unmarried women to meet as there used to be.
	Previous studies had attempted to answer why marriage rates are on the decline, but most focus solely on gender ratio discrepancies, as opposed to looking into the specific socioeconomic characteristics that make a particular man and woman a good match, according to studyfinds.org.
	First, The study's authors examined data collected on recent marriages between 2007 and 2012 and 2013 and 2017.
	These data were gathered as part of the American Community Survey's cumulative five-year marriage statistics.
	That data was used to estimate the financial and socio-demographic characteristics of unmarried women's potential husbands.
	By creating economic profiles that resembled real husbands who had married comparable women.
	So in other words, they would take two women, one was single, one was married.
	They would say the married woman tends to be married to this type of dude.
	Are there a lot of that type of dude in the population for the single woman to be married to?
	And the answer was no.
	Researchers found that the estimated potential dream husbands had an average income about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men currently available to unmarried women.
	The synthetic husbands were also 30% more likely to be employed than real single men and 19% more likely to have a college degree.
	It was also observed that many racial and ethnic minorities, specifically African-American women, seem to be dealing with especially low numbers of economically attractive potential mates.
	So this is sort of Tucker Carlson's case, right?
	Tucker Carlson has been making the case that men have been underserved in the labor force, that with the advent of women moving into the labor force at heavier and heavier rates, there's more competition for increasing jobs, but the number of jobs is not increasing fast enough, and that that increasing competition has left a lot of men out of jobs, Or in part-time jobs or in lower earning jobs because of wage competition.
	And this has led to a decline in marriage because women want to marry men who earn more than they do or at least as much as they do.
	They want to marry men who are better educated.
	Everybody sort of wants to marry up is basically the supposition.
	And this study is supposed to show exactly that.
	And the study is basically saying there are not enough men who are earning high salaries for women to marry.
	Okay, so that's a piece of data.
	I think there's some flaws with the study.
	I think, first of all, correlation does not equal causation.
	It is quite possible that women are marrying the choicest men, specifically because they are the choicest men, but that doesn't explain why low-income women are unable to find men who are earning slightly more than that.
	There are plenty of middle-class men who are unmarried, and a lot of low-income... You would imagine that what you would see, if that were the case, if it were really just about the number of women Not matching up with the number of men who earn more.
	What you would expect to see is a decline in the levels of marriage as female income went up, right?
	You'd expect to see a lot of poor women getting married because there are a lot of people who are richer than poor in the United States, a lot of men.
	And then as you moved up the income scale, you would expect to see women who earn a lot of money marrying less and less.
	And that's actually the opposite of what you see, right?
	What you actually see is that women who are better educated tend to get married more often.
	It's kind of fascinating.
	As you increase the income scale, what you see is that higher levels of education actually correlate highly with higher levels of marriage.
	So this kind of cuts against the normal supposition, which is that women who will go to college are women's empowerment specialists and they never get married.
	Actually not true.
	Actually not true.
	As people get more educated, they actually tend to live more conservatively, which is kind of fascinating.
	They tend to vote more liberal and live more conservatively.
	Which is very interesting.
	According to a Pew Research study from 2017, half of U.S.
	adults today are married, a share that has remained relatively stable in recent years, but is down 9 percentage points over the past quarter century and dramatically different from the peak of 72% in 1960.
	The decline in the share of married adults can be explained in part by the fact that Americans are marrying later in life, but delayed marriage may not explain all of the drop-off.
	The share of Americans who have never married has been rising steadily in recent decades.
	Marriage rates are now more closely linked to socioeconomic status than ever before.
	And what the Census Bureau data show is that the education gap in marital status has continued to widen.
	Percentage of U.S.
	adults 25 and older married by education.
	65% of people with a bachelor's plus degree are married in the United States age 25 and older.
	High school or less, only 50% of Americans are married by over the age of 25, only half.
	That's a very significant difference.
	So is that about the lack of marriageable partners?
	It seems probably not because the fact is again, most Americans are not poor.
	So if you are poorly educated or you have lower levels of education, there should be more marriageable partners available to you because you're here in education.
	Most Americans are here in education.
	That's a much broader gamut of people who you could choose to marry presumably.
	So the data don't quite match up.
	The economic hollowing out theory doesn't quite match up.
	Now, it is true that higher earning men would provide more of an economic benefit for marriage, obviously.
	But what this really goes to is a cultural effect.
	So this has been the big battle inside the conservative movement right now over the role of government.
	So people like Tucker have suggested that what you need is government interventionism to shore up male wages in order so that people will get married.
	And there is some truth to the idea that as male wages have relatively declined compared to female wages, that the marriage rates have gone down.
	But it is also true that exactly what you would expect to happen with regard to economics has been exacerbated wildly, wildly by the decline of religion in America.
	And what you are expecting, again, what you would expect to see is that people who are lower on the income totem pole should be getting married more often if they are simply seeking a partner who earns more than they do, because again, they're low on the income totem pole.
	Instead, what you are seeing is that high school educated males are not getting married as much.
	That the middle income and blue collar workers are not getting married as much, which is quite fascinating.
	That the real problem is existing lower down on the income spectrum.
	So there's an article in the Atlantic today talking about America without family, God, or patriotism, because there was a new poll we talked about on the show showing that younger people in America do not believe in family, God, or patriotism.
	And where is that population really located?
	The author of this piece in the Atlantic, Derek Thompson, a staff writer, he points out that disproportionately, disproportionately, it's not really about youth alone.
	It's about something bigger.
	He says there's this blanket distrust of institutions of authority, but it's not confined to the relatively young, and it isn't confined to the over-educated.
	He points out a study from Catherine Eden and Timothy Nelson at Princeton University, Andrew Cherlin at Johns Hopkins, and Robert Francis at Whitworth.
	They published a paper based on lengthy interviews conducted from 2000 to 2013 with older, low-income men without a college degree in black and white working-class neighborhoods in the Boston, Charleston, Chicago, and Philadelphia areas.
	Now, what you would expect is that these are people who want to get married but can't get married because they're not earning enough, right?
	That would be the theory behind sort of what Tucker says and what this new study says about the economics of marriage.
	It turns out, a lot of these dudes just don't want to get married.
	According to this particular study, many of these men, having been disconnected from the stable, unionized, pension-paying jobs of their fathers, reject the diseased state of American institutions in ways that millennials might find relatable.
	First, low-income, working-class men are turning away from organized religion even faster than millennials in Gen Z.
	And this, I think, is the causative factor.
	Since the 1970s, church attendance among white men without a college degree has fallen even more than among white college graduates, according to the paper.
	They remain deeply spiritual without being traditionally devout.
	They avoid church.
	Instead, they prefer to browse the internet and libraries for makeshift pieces of religious self.
	They've detached from religious institutions.
	And many poor working class men now reject the nuclear family itself.
	Their marriage rates have declined in lockstep with their church attendance, right?
	Not in lockstep with their economic situation, in lockstep with their church attendance.
	The authors note a number of these men were eager to have close relationships with their kids, even when they had little relationship with the mothers.
	Many of them had given up on romance with the relationship with women.
	And they're facing challenges with regard to mental health, specifically because they've abandoned a lot of these institutions.
	And this is actually what you see.
	The share of married adults varies widely by religious practice.
	And here, the correlation is extraordinarily high.
	The more religious you are, the more likely you are to be married in the United States.
	The richer you are, the more likely you are to be married.
	And the more religious you are, the more likely you are to be married.
	Well, religion crosses all sorts of income lines.
	So, it really doesn't look like a wealth effect so much as it is an institutional effect.
	Because, here's the deal.
	There are two reasons to get married.
	Reason number one is because it's an economic decision.
	There, the changes in American economics obviously would have an impact.
	So if you're getting married because you believe that two incomes are better than one, or because you're looking for a breadwinner in your home and you can't find a breadwinner in your home, obviously that's going to impact marriage rates.
	But the fact is, most people historically in the United States and abroad do not get married for the economic arrangement.
	They don't.
	Most people traditionally have gotten married because they believe that it is the right thing to do, that it betters you, that you're fulfilling a religious obligation, And that is particularly important in industrialized countries.
	Because it used to be, right, in poorer countries, that the economics and the religion lined up.
	The economics and the religion lined up really well, in fact, because you wanted, you were poor.
	Your biggest asset was going to be your children, right?
	Your children were gonna take care of you in your old age.
	They were gonna help you work the fields.
	They were gonna make sure that you were taken care of.
	They were going to join the family business.
	So you wanted to pop out little workers, right?
	I mean, on an economic level.
	You were going to create your own labor supply.
	And the only way to do that is to marry mom and then have kids.
	And so that lined up perfectly with the dictates of your religion, which also suggested you were fulfilling a spiritual and religious duty to get married and have kids.
	Well now what you've seen in the West is a bifurcation of the economics and the religion.
	So religions has the same thing that it always said, which is it is spiritually fulfilling, it is a godly mandate for you to get married and pop out kids, that this is something that you ought to do will make you better, it is you fulfilling a spiritual requirement of you dictated by God.
	Religion has not changed one iota on this, which is why people who deeply believe in religion are still getting married.
	But the economics have changed.
	Because now, having kids is a net cost.
	In fact, women who have kids, that is a... According to Elizabeth Warren, that is one of the single best predictors of a woman going bankrupt, is having children.
	So, kids are actually a net cost, right?
	Because now the government's gonna take care of you in your old age.
	Now we have a social welfare net.
	Your kids are not a labor supply.
	You're gonna have to pay for your kid's education all the way through college and sometimes grad school.
	So, the economics are diverging from the religious mandate.
	So, the question is, which is more likely to fix America?
	Or both?
	One, to quote-unquote, fix the economics.
	That's very difficult without either changing the labor system in the United States through subsidies or through regulations, which would lower the average level of the American consumption habits tremendously.
	It would misallocate resources.
	It would not be an economic language, Pareto efficient.
	It would damage some people at the expense of other people.
	Is that the best path?
	Do you really think that we can reestablish an economic system where it is economically beneficial for women to marry and men to marry and them to have kids?
	Because that has never applied in industrialized countries, which is why as people get richer, they tend to have fewer children, right?
	Because kids cost instead of being a benefit.
	Or should we be encouraging people to reconnect with a lot of the religious and spiritual institutions that used to give people meaning?
	Because it turns out that the lack of meaning is probably a better predictor of whether you're going to make solid decisions in your personal life than whether you earn a lot of money or whether you don't earn a lot of money.
	The correlation there is really high.
	The study from Pew shows that among agnostics and atheists, only about 35% are married.
	Among people who are members of the Presbyterian Church or the UCC or the Evangelical Lutheran Church, it is well above 60%.
	And this holds true for virtually all churches in the United States that people attend on a regular basis.
	So is it a cultural problem or is it an economic problem?
	You can blame it on economics, but it's a lot harder to change the basic rules of economics.
	It is a lot easier, I think, and I think, frankly, more fruitful.
	I think the rules of economics are always going to push against you because they just go for what is most efficient.
	And what is most efficient may not cut in favor of the social institutions you love.
	You have to, brick by brick, rebuild those social institutions if you wish to reestablish the importance of marriage.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I like.
	So, here is a thing that I like.
	I do... I'm always amused by the... Dennis Prager, my friend Dennis Prager, he has this very simple thought experiment that he likes to do.
	And his thought experiment is...
	You're standing above a river, there's a drowning person, and there's your dog.
	Which one do you save?
	And he's always surprised that a huge number of people say that they would save the dog.
	I am similarly surprised, but that same logic is now applied to the logic of abortion.
	Will Witt over at PragerU did a video in which he went around asking a bunch of liberals whether we should protect the lives of unborn eagles.
	Unborn eagles' eggs.
	And then he asked them about unborn humans.
	Watch.
	What's up guys?
	This is Will Witt with PragerU.
	Today we're in Echo Park where we have a petition to stop the killing of eagles, stop the destruction of eagle eggs.
	But then we're asking them to sign a petition to stop the killing of babies.
	Yeah, of course.
	Awesome.
	Don't kill eagles.
	Yeah, double signature is fine.
	Had like three white claws today.
	And so I didn't know if you guys would want to sign this for sure, yeah.
	Best of luck, I hope you save the eagles.
	Thank you, thank you so much.
	And we actually, let me just talk to you real quick.
	We have one other petition about stopping the killing of humans too.
	Oh my god.
	Stop the killing of babies.
	I hate killing of babies.
	Right?
	Like, you hate abortion?
	We want to protect their rights, too, even though being, like, unborn.
	Wait, no, I don't agree with that.
	I, uh, fully support abortion.
	Why do you support not the killing of unborn eagles, but the killing of unborn children?
	Um, I think it's the mother's decision.
	But babies are gross.
	You say babies are gross?
	Yes.
	Well, it's just like, you know what it does to your body?
	You're not a woman, so you'd have no idea.
	A human woman should have more rights probably than a bald eagle.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Abortion.
	Thanks.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Yeah, there's some real philosophical disconnect right there.
	Okay, one other thing that I like.
	So Drew Brees, the woke police came for Drew Brees today, the quarterback of the New Orleans Saints.
	He had cut a video for Focus on the Family for National Bring a Bible to School Day.
	Drew Brees is a religious Christian.
	And he had just cut this video saying that you should bring a Bible to school to demonstrate your religious fealty.
	That doesn't violate the First Amendment.
	It doesn't ruin your school or anything.
	And that's fine.
	The woke scults came after him because they were like, well, he worked with focus on the family and focus on the family is in favor of traditional marriage.
	And that means they're evil.
	So Drew Brees is evil.
	Well, Drew Brees was asked about this and he's like, are you guys effing kidding me?
	I cut a video on behalf of people being able to bring Bibles to school.
	And now I'm on the chopping block.
	Here's Drew Brees defending himself as well.
	He should.
	There's been a lot of negativity spread about me in the LGBTQ community recently based upon a article that someone wrote with a very negative headline that I think led people to believe that somehow I was aligned with an organization that was anti LGBTQ.
	What I did was I filmed a video recently that was encouraging kids to bring their Bibles to school for National Bring Your Bible to School Day.
	It was as simple as that.
	So I'm not sure why the negativity spread or why people tried to rope me into certain negativity.
	I do not support any groups that discriminate or that have their own agendas that are trying to promote inequality.
	Okay, so, you know, again, good for Drew Brees.
	The Woke Police will come for anybody, man, and you cannot give an inch.
	You cannot give an inch, because they're just the worst.
	Alrighty, we don't have time for things that I hate, because basically the whole show this week has been about things that I hate.
	So, we will be here a little bit later with two additional hours of content, or, alternatively, we will see you here next week.
	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.
	Assistant Director, Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Siovitz.
	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.
	On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

▲