Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 26, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

52:14

Drag Queens To Stop Trump! | Ep. 905

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Washington Post has a unique solution to the Trump problem.
	The left goes after Pete Buttigieg.
	And the president of Wesleyan defends woke students.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	It's how my listeners and I secure their internet.
	Join them at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so, got a lot to get to today here on the show.
	First, I'm gonna fix my microphone, actually.
	So, well done, producers.
	Okay, we're gonna get to all of it in just one second.
	Let's begin with the Washington Post finally deciding That something very important has happened to change the nature of the Trump presidency.
	You can tell the press are getting desperate when they are now pushing the notion that drag queens are going to end the Trump presidency.
	So they tried impeachment.
	That ain't going anywhere.
	They tried the whole, we'll have Hillary Clinton beat him.
	That didn't go anywhere.
	They tried the, let's have a bevy of candidates who aren't very good stand up there and rip on Trump.
	That ain't going anywhere.
	So now the style section of the Washington Post is very excited about drag queens.
	You see, Large men dressed up in female garb in peculiarly sexualized ways.
	That's what's going to defeat Trump.
	Do you understand?
	The culture will defeat Trump.
	A culture of drag queens.
	According to the Washington Post, there's a piece today in their style section.
	It is titled, How Drag Queens Have Snatched the Political Spotlight in the Trump Era.
	Unfortunate wording.
	The murmur spread through the crowd at the Lincoln Theatre, but not because the headliner, Sasha Velour, the Season 9 winner of RuPaul's Drag Race, was about to take the stage.
	Everyone was looking at the balcony seats on the right, where a ponytailed woman in a navy pantsuit was taking her seat.
	AOC!
	Someone yelled from below.
	The audience rose to give representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has been outspoken about her appreciation for drag on Twitter, a standing ovation.
	Two days later, in another Washington mashup of work and work, W-E-R-K, drag queen Pissy Miles, and one of the most charming things about drag queen culture is the choice of R-rated names, clacked down the halls of the Longworth building in shiny red pumps, Miles was there as a journalist and commentator, covering the impeachment for livestreaming, crowdsourced to news company Haps, though she quickly became a story herself.
	It's not often that a drag queen sashays her way through official Washington at 6 feet 8 inches in heels and a wig, serving looks and political analysis in equal measure.
	The following week, she was reporting again, this time from the spin room at the Democratic debate in Atlanta.
	I do have a question about the use of pronouns here.
	If you're a drag queen, doesn't that by necessity suggest that you are a male?
	Hey, if you're an actual transgender person, then you're not a drag queen, are you?
	You're just a transgender person.
	So it's weird to call a drag queen she when you're a he wearing makeup and heels and a wig.
	Drag and politics, says the Washington Post, have always been intertwined, ever since the 1969 uprising at the Stonewall Inn in New York, where drag queens and transgender women, notably the performer Marsha P. Johnson, were among the foremothers of the gay rights movement.
	And in the lead up to 2020, with drag enjoying more mainstream popularity than ever before, drag queens are becoming a perfect foil to President Trump.
	You might be losing when you're relying on drag queens named Pissy Miles to oust the President of the United States.
	So the drag queen is the perfect foil?
	It's not like Adam Schiff.
	Not Nancy Pelosi.
	A drag queen who shows up with a camera in pumps to a congressional hearing.
	Pissy Miles, the illustrious, wise, says, in the queer community, and this is something that a more broad audience might not know, drag queens are kind of looked at as community leaders and mouthpieces.
	They ride out first with their sword in the air.
	And a lot of unfortunate language in this piece.
	The act of dressing in drag has long been a political statement.
	It's an act of rebellion against societal norms, and an art form that elevates the voices of disenfranchised communities.
	Oh, I just thought that it was guys dressing in drag.
	I thought that was, like, what it was.
	But apparently, it is a rebellion against societal norms.
	The most powerful voices among us are people who don the garb of the opposite gender.
	As drag has attracted a new mainstream audience, one that might see it purely as entertainment, says the Washington Post, there have been efforts to make the connection more overt.
	House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has appeared on Drag Race, and the show has hosted political challenges for the contestants, asking them to participate in a mock presidential debate and a Trump-themed musical.
	DragCon, a convention for fans of the Emmy-winning show, has hosted panels on the art of resistance and drag in Trump's America.
	In Los Angeles last April, maybe a girl, again, R-rated, bizarre names.
	Maybe a girl.
	Got it?
	Get it?
	It's ju- See, it's fun.
	It's fun.
	You get it?
	Haha!
	Defeating Trump with punnery!
	Haha!
	Became possibly the first drag queen to hold public office when she was elected to the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council.
	Again, I'm so confused by the use of pronouns.
	Isn't it demeaning to transgender people to take non-transgender people and call them by the opposite gender?
	How does this work?
	Well, I guess this person is gender fluid.
	So wouldn't you actually have to use their preferred pronouns?
	Not she, Washington Post!
	How dare you!
	The gender-fluid performer known for her satirical impressions of Melania Trump, Betsy DeVos, and Sarah Sanders announced her plans to run for California's 28th congressional district and the sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of drag nuns, which isn't humiliating to Catholics in any way.
	It's not targeting a minority group in the United States for mockery in any way.
	Have been politically active since their founding in 1979.
	No one commands attention quite like a drag queen.
	By the way, if you pay attention to drag queens on the street, however, then this is because you're a bigot.
	Even though, obviously, this is activity begging for attention.
	It's a matter of channeling that attention into important causes, says Velour.
	The queer community, especially the drag community, is made up of many people who fall below the poverty line.
	And many black and brown people, said Velour, I think the popularity of drag and popularity of those kinds of stories and narratives is going to shift people's minds, hopefully.
	That's right.
	If you see an impoverished person dressing in the garb of the opposite gender and strutting around town, and you think to yourself, that's a strange life choice if you wish to rise in the world at a Chase Manhattan bank, then this is because your awareness has not been raised.
	Pissy Miles had no reporting experience prior to her gig with Haps.
	She was recruited by one of the company's contributors, who thought she would be an eye-catching addition to their coverage, which targets younger viewers.
	She didn't realize she'd get so much attention.
	It's noticeable, it's notable that a drag queen was sent to cover an event that wasn't overtly about LGBTQ policy.
	Though one could argue that impeachment is the ultimate case of, I'm sorry, my dear, but you're up for elimination.
	Oh, you see me?
	Oh, because it's like, it's like RuPaul.
	Oh.
	To our audience, she's another person, an unusual person, a theatrical person, said David Newman, Haps's co-founder and chief content officer.
	He's talking to Miles about covering other news events throughout 2020.
	Audience members at that event mentioned earlier were doubly starstruck by the juxtaposition between Velour and AOC, and even tried to form a selfie line to the balcony until security shut it down.
	The congresswoman met Velour backstage, filming a short video where they fangirled over each other, said Velour, dressed in a pink gown.
	Velour thanked her for facing the kind of online bullying and rabid surreal hate from some right-wing people.
	Oh, oh, wow.
	Drag's ascension into the political conversation says the Washington Post has not been without challenges.
	And wait until you hear these challenges.
	Again, this is drag queens to stop Trump.
	You get the sense the media might be getting desperate over this whole Trump thing?
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First!
	Let us talk about the underwear that currently Grace here took us.
	Are they as comfortable as they ought to be?
	If not, then you are doing it wrong.
	You need to go check out Tommy John.
	It's the revolutionary underwear, loungewear, and clothing brand that guarantees a perfect fit.
	And now they are stepping it up this holiday season with an unbelievable offer exclusively for my listeners.
	Right now, you can shop Tommy John's biggest sale of the year and get 25% off site-wide.
	If you'd have FOMO for Tommy John, well now is the chance to try or give The most comfortable underwear and loungewear on the planet to somebody.
	Tommy John wants everyone to experience the amazing fit and feel.
	I can testify to it.
	My wife wears Tommy John as well.
	She is crazy about Tommy John products.
	They have great products.
	Breathable, wedgie-proof underwear, which would have helped me a lot in high school.
	And ridiculously soft loungewear, guaranteed to fit perfectly.
	Plus...
	You won't get that wedgie.
	As I say, would have served me well in my younger days.
	Give the gift of comfort this holiday season with limited edition gifts like loungewear and underwear from Tommy John.
	Plus, save 25% off site-wide when you go to tommyjohn.com and use the promo code BEN.
	That's code BEN at tommyjohn.com.
	The most comfortable underwear and loungewear and all the other stuff on the planet.
	I mean, their stuff is really, really first rate.
	Go check them out at tommyjohn.com and use code BEN to get 25% off site-wide.
	Alrighty, so the Washington Post continues with this extraordinarily long piece about how drag queens are going to save us all from Trump.
	Because, by the way, President Trump has like nothing against drag queens.
	I mean, he was the person who was suggesting that Caitlyn Jenner, who's not a drag queen, but that Caitlyn Jenner could use any bathroom that he wanted, because Caitlyn Jenner is a man, could use any bathroom he wanted at Trump Tower.
	So Trump doesn't care about this stuff at all, but apparently drag queens are exactly the droids you're looking for.
	According to the Washington Post, Drag's ascension into the political conversation has not been without challenges.
	Drag Queen Story Hour, a national program that encourages queens to read to children in libraries, has sparked protests across the country.
	Well, yes, maybe because if you have adults who are trying to create gender confusion for small children and parents who subject their children to that, that's a bad thing.
	Maybe when you have adults, many of whom Well, some of whom, a minority of whom, shall we say, have had checkered histories.
	I mean, we've had several cases of Drag Queen Story Hour readers having had criminal records on sexual matters, reading to children, or showing up dressed in skimpy outfits to read to children.
	Yes, that has created some controversy, as it turns out.
	Founders say it teaches children empathy and inclusiveness.
	Yes, I'm sure.
	I'm sure that's what it's all about.
	It is not about the performative need for many of the drag queens who want to read to small children.
	Fox News anchor Martha McCallum rightly told viewers the program aimed to indoctrinate and unnecessarily expose children to sexuality, which of course is exactly true.
	A meme widely shared in 2017 featured a photo of a woman in hijab sitting on a New York subway next to drag performer Gilda Wabbit, which Twitter user PollNewsNetwork1 derisively captioned, This is the future liberals want.
	Liberals responded that they did, in fact, want that future, and mocked the sentiment by turning it into a meme.
	A similar thing happened to Velour after she posted her video with AOC on Twitter.
	Conservative gay political commentator Dave Rubin reposted the video with the caption, Your Democratic 2024 ticket, ladies, gentlemen, and other.
	Another Twitter user with the handle BRREC responded, if she wins in 2024, that pink tall person will be our Supreme Court judge.
	The lore appropriated the insult, changing her name on Twitter to pink tall person.
	If these people are so threatened by a little makeup and like by theater, talk about people who live their lives defined by fear.
	They cannot think rationally if they're afraid of this gorgeous lipstick and a little corsetry.
	Well, a lot of corsetry.
	Nobody's afraid.
	We're just pointing out that this is a cultural shift and that the media are cheering it on all the way.
	But if they really believe that this is going to result in Trump losing the election, they got another thing coming.
	I don't think most Americans are interested in pissy miles deciding foreign policy.
	Not because Pissy Miles is unqualified to discuss foreign policy.
	I don't know Pissy Miles' international relations background.
	But because if the left is forcing the notion that gender is completely malleable and that putting on a wig and a dress is the essence of womanhood and you get to use the opposite pronouns if you do so, I don't think most Americans are on board with that.
	And meanwhile, the radicalism of the left continues apace.
	Pete Buttigieg under severe attack today.
	You knew this was coming, right?
	That Pete Buttigieg was going to come under severe attack.
	Now, listen.
	I've said from the beginning that I thought that Pete Buttigieg is most interesting when he is moderate.
	That was his original draw.
	Originally, in this race, I said that Buttigieg was maybe the most interesting Democrat in the race, specifically because he didn't seem like an overt radical jerk.
	Pete Buttigieg ...would spend his days talking about how he would eat a Chick-fil-A and he didn't really see the controversy, which was a nice thing in our culturally polarized country.
	And then Buttigieg, trying to win over the left, swiveled to the left and started talking about how you're a bad Christian if you don't believe that his same-sex marriage is just as non-sinful as your traditional marriage, and suggesting that you're a bad Christian also if you don't believe in abortion on demand, which is a weird take.
	Well, now Pete Buttigieg has swiveled back to the center, mainly because he's able to contrast himself with Elizabeth Warren, who is wildly to the left.
	And because of this, he has been gaining in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where according to the RealClearPolitics polling data, he's now ahead in Iowa, and he is basically running even in New Hampshire under the polling average, but in the last couple of polls, he's actually been up in New Hampshire.
	Those are heavily, heavily white states.
	Very few black Democrats live in Iowa and New Hampshire.
	Very few black Americans live in Iowa and New Hampshire by percentage.
	And so the rip on Pete Buttigieg has been he's winning in all the white states, but as soon as you get down south, he's going to get clocked.
	Because 60% of the Democratic primary base in states like South Carolina is black.
	And Pete Buttigieg has right now a 0% rating among black voters in places like South Carolina.
	So the attacks were soon to come, right?
	Buttigieg has been gaining steam, and Elizabeth Warren has been losing steam, and so you could see these attacks coming from a mile away.
	Well, the latest attack, which is trending on Twitter today, was by a guy named Michael Harriot.
	Okay, Michael Harriot is a writer for The Root, and he wrote a very long piece talking about how Pete Buttigieg is a terrible person.
	The title of the piece is Pete Buttigieg is a lying MF.
	He's not just a person with very little black support.
	He is a lying MF.
	So what makes Pete Buttigieg a lying MF?
	As it turns out, Pete Buttigieg has suggested in the past that educational disparities between racial groups may not be entirely due to systemic discrimination.
	I know.
	Super duper controversial.
	That not every disparity is due to discrimination or systemic racism.
	Now in today's modern democratic party, this is the stuff you're not allowed to say.
	Pete Buttigieg said this back in 2011, but it doesn't matter.
	It's being brought up again anew.
	He said a reasonable thing, and now people on the left are losing their bleep over it.
	So this piece was trending on Twitter today by Michael Harriot.
	And here is what the piece says.
	$7,322.
	I hid it in a white piggly wiggly bag in the back of the dishwasher.
	Every single time I returned to that tiny apartment, I opened up that Navajo white Kenmore dishwasher and made sure...
	It was there.
	It was not a gift.
	It was not a reward.
	It wasn't even mine.
	And it still wasn't enough.
	I am from what most people would call the hood.
	The bad section of town.
	You know, where black people live, says Michael Harriot.
	During the crack revolution of the late 80s, to get to school every day, I would give a friendly nod as I walked past the early rising dope boys.
	I meandered through the projects and, if it had recently rained, I waited for someone to help me put a 10 foot long wooden plank across a ditch that separated the black part of town from the bucolic neighborhood where the only high school in town was located.
	If no one was there, or if a prankster had hidden the makeshift bridge, then I had to either leap across, or walk the long way around, adding an extra 15 minutes to my morning walk.
	Our neighborhood had no bus, so either you walked that balance beam between the projects, took a 30 minute stroll, or you said F it.
	I never said F it.
	But if I did, it wouldn't have been because of my lack of role models.
	If I had chosen to keep my mama's lights on instead of making that daily trek, my decision wouldn't have been based on a tropological dearth of motivation or communal ambivalence.
	As I grow older, I realize that I was not gifted, talented, or even diligent.
	I'm just a lucky MF-er.
	Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is a lucky MF-er too.
	By the way, in this whole piece, Michael Harriot never explains what separated him from the quote-unquote dope boys, why he went to school and they didn't, for example.
	What does that have to do with luck?
	It's a public school.
	They too could walk across that plank.
	But according to Michael Harriot, it was just a matter of luck that he walked across that plank to a public school.
	But, presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is a lucky MF-er too.
	By the way, living in America, you're a lucky MF-er.
	Some people are luckier than others.
	I grew up in a two-parent household, which is the greatest privilege you can have in the United States, right?
	It is the greatest starting point you can have in the United States, is to grow up in a solid two-parent family.
	This is why...
	There's a serious problem in communities that have a rising single motherhood rate.
	71% of black kids in the United States are born into a single parent household.
	That creates additional stressors.
	Less time for moms to do homework with the kids.
	It creates a need sometimes for kids to get out on the street and earn.
	It's a real problem.
	It's a real problem.
	That's an actual privilege.
	Right, because that's something you're born with.
	Now, does that mean you should be punished for that?
	No, it means that we should encourage more people to get married before they have kids, obviously.
	But we'll get to Michael Harriot's actual critique of Pete Buttigieg in just one second.
	And it does demonstrate where the heart and soul of the Democratic Party are now, and how you are not allowed to say basic truths, because Pete Buttigieg made a boo-boo, you see.
	He said a basic truth back in 2011, and this is not acceptable.
	It's not acceptable.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how to make your home better.
	Okay, so you already replaced all the paint, You already did the floors, got yourself some new furniture, but something still looks a little bit dingy.
	You know what it is?
	It's the blinds.
	I know, you haven't looked at the window coverings in years because, hey, they covered the windows.
	They did what they were supposed to.
	There's only one problem.
	They look terrible.
	You need to replace them right now.
	Head on over to Blinds.com.
	Going blind shopping isn't one of the things that I wake up thrilling to in the morning, but Blinds.com knows that, and that's why they make it super easy.
	You just send them pictures of your house, and they send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, and specific rooms.
	And here's the best part.
	If you accidentally mismeasure or you pick the wrong color, if you make a mistake, Blinds.com will remake your blinds for free.
	They've really made it easy for you, so there's no excuse to leave up those mangled blinds that make your place look like a set from The Wire.
	And for a limited time, get 20% off everything at blinds.com when you use promo code BEN.
	That is blinds.com, promo code BEN for 20% off everything.
	Faux wood blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more.
	Blinds.com, promo code BEN.
	Rules and restrictions do apply.
	That's a pretty great deal.
	Blinds.com, promo code BEN for 20% off everything.
	Okay, so Michael Harriot says that presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is a lucky MF for two.
	He attended one of the best private schools in the country that was quite literally on the campus of one of the best colleges in the country, University of Notre Dame, where his father worked as a professor for 29 years.
	His mother taught in an even better, more elite school.
	And if you asked how he got into Harvard, he became a Rhodes Scholar.
	Mayor Pete would probably insist it had nothing to do with whiteness.
	He would likely tell you he valued education and had great role models, both of which are probably true.
	There is no question that he is intelligent, hardworking, and well-educated.
	But he didn't have to jump a ditch.
	So when a clip surfaced of Buttigieg explaining why Negro kids fail at school so often, his answer made perfect sense.
	Okay, here is Pete Buttigieg's answer that drove Michael Harriot to call Pete Buttigieg a lying MF-er and caused that phrase to trend on Twitter.
	Kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them, right?
	So you see a lot of parts of town that work.
	That's part of the motivation.
	Yeah, because you're motivated because you believe that at the end of your educational process there's a reward, there's a stable life, there's a job.
	And there are a lot of kids, especially the lower income minority neighborhoods, who literally just haven't seen it work.
	There isn't somebody they know personally who testifies to the value of education.
	Okay, and for this, he is termed by Michael Harriot a lying MF-er.
	Why?
	Well, says Michael Harriot, this is not a misunderstanding.
	This is not a misstatement.
	Pete Buttigieg went to the best educational institutions America has to offer, and he, more than anyone on the GD planet, knows that everything he just say is a bald-faced lie.
	Well, no, actually, nothing he said was a bald-faced lie.
	Nothing.
	He explicitly talked about lack of opportunity on the other end for a lot of young black people, and apparently this is racist.
	It's also racist if you suggest that there is a problem in a lot of inner-city communities.
	By the way, it exists in white Appalachia as well, as J.D.
	Vance has talked about in Hillbilly Elegy, where education is not invested with the same value as other values on the hierarchy.
	But apparently, according to Michael Harriot, if you point this out, if you point out that not every discrepancy is discrimination, not every disparity between groups is discrimination, this makes you a lying MF-er.
	So, according to Michael Harriot, what causes the entire racial gap in education?
	He says, majority minority schools received $23 billion less in funding than majority white schools, according to a recent survey by EdBuild.
	Okay, well, by the way, that is largely due to lower property tax expenditures in largely minority areas because of endemic poverty.
	Meaning that if you have a poverty-ridden area, many local public schools are powered by the property taxes in those areas.
	If you're not garnering a lot of property tax, there's not as much money to spend.
	Black students in Indiana, the state where Buttigieg serves as mayor and across the country, are disciplined more harshly than white students.
	But even though Buttigieg has never attended a school with more than 10% black students, he thinks he knows what's stopping black kids from achieving their educational dreams.
	Apparently, it's not the fact that the unemployment rate for black college grads is twice as high as the unemployment rate for white grads.
	Black college grads are paid 80 cents for every dollar a white person with the same education earns.
	White people leave college with lower debt and higher earnings.
	White kids get more resources, more advanced classes, and have access to more technology.
	But Pete says it could all be solved with a vision board.
	Mayor Pete's bold bleepery is not just wrong, it is proof.
	It proves, says Michael Harriot, that men like him are more willing to perpetuate the fantastic narrative of Negro neighborhoods needing more role models and briefcase carriers than make the people in power stare into the sun and see the blinding light of racism.
	Get Along moderates would rather make bleep up out of whole cloth than wade into the waters of reality.
	Pete Buttigieg doesn't want to change anything.
	He just wants to be something.
	This is not just a lie of omission, says Michael Harriot.
	It's a dangerous precedent.
	This is why institutional inequality persists.
	Not because of white hoods and racial slurs.
	It is because this insidious double-talk erases the problem by camouflaging it.
	Because it is painted as a problem of black lethargy and not white apathy.
	Pete Buttigieg is standing over a dying man, holding the oxygen machine in his hand and telling everyone, nah, he doesn't need CPR.
	He's just holding his breath.
	Negligent homicide is still homicide.
	And then this guy concludes his piece by talking about where he got all this money.
	Apparently, he got the money from the quote-unquote dope boys he walked past every day who collected all of the ones and a few five dollar bills from guys in the black and handed to him when he left college.
	He still doesn't explain why exactly he kept jumping the ditch, but a bunch of the kids in his neighborhood did not jump the ditch.
	And he doesn't explain that in any way.
	Now, does this mean that everyone faces the same obstacles in life?
	Of course not!
	You'd be a fool to suggest that everyone faces the same obstacles in life.
	But you would also be a fool to suggest that the discrepancies in educational performance between black students and white students are entirely due to institutional discrimination.
	It's just not true.
	And in a second, I'm going to show you that it is just not true with a few quick facts and figures, many of them garnered from the census data.
	Okay, we'll give you that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how you need to avoid credit card debt.
	Okay, I was always taught that you pay your credit card off on time, right?
	If you're going to take a credit card at all, then you've got to pay it off on time because if you don't, those interest rates start to skyrocket on you.
	If you weren't taught that, or if you just were a miss for a month, suddenly you can find yourself behind the eight ball.
	And people are constantly telling you, you should take out a new credit card.
	There are all sorts of great credit card offers over at the local mall.
	Why don't you just do it?
	Well, you shouldn't, but if you did, and now you're in debt, you need Lending Club.
	Lending Club helps you consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards.
	With one fixed monthly payment, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
	No trips to a bank, no high-interest credit cards.
	Just go to LendingClub.com, tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow, pick the terms that are right for you.
	If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
	Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
	Again, it's easy to get into debt.
	You just made a mistake, but now you need to get it fixed.
	To be a responsible adult, go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Check your rate in minutes, borrow up to $40,000.
	That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Again, LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lenders.
	So, when I talk about the radicalism of the Democratic Party, when I talk about the radicalism of many members of the media, You know, beyond the whole drag queens are going to take down Trump, you have this whole article about how Pete Buttigieg is not just wrong, a lying MF-er for suggesting that kids from lower income neighborhoods haven't seen education work because there isn't someone they know personally who testifies to the value of education.
	That happens to be true.
	That happens to be true on a statistical level.
	For example, there is a study that was recently done by researchers at Stanford, Harvard, and the Census Bureau.
	It was about income inequality and income mobility in the United States.
	What the study noted, and this is fascinating, is that black women, when you adjust for income gap in the households where they grow up, Black and white women raised in similar households do not have an income gap.
	The income gap does not exist.
	In fact, according to the study, black women earn slightly more than white women, conditional on parent income.
	There is little or no gap in wage rates or hours of work between black and white women.
	Black women have higher college attendance rates than white men, conditional on parental income.
	So what happened to the racism?
	If it's institutional racism, then what you would expect is that black women Despite adjusting for all other factors, would go to college at a lower rate, they would earn less, but that is not true.
	That is not true.
	The same study, by the way, found that income gaps between whites and Hispanics were converging, and also Asian Americans actually earn more than whites raised at the same income level.
	Presumably that isn't discrimination in favor of Asian Americans.
	The study also discusses one of the reasons why black men who are raised in fairly economically privileged households actually fall into poverty a lot more often.
	According to the study, black men raised in the top 1% by millionaires were as likely to be incarcerated as white men raised in households earning about $36,000.
	Is that the fault of white racism?
	The study itself finds that the relationship between racism in a given area and incarceration rates is not statistically significant.
	Also, if affirmative action programs in colleges and high schools are defined by race rather than non-income, high-income young black men may still end up paying a price in the workplace on the other end.
	So when you talk about unemployment rate among black college graduates, one of the problems is that affirmative action programs create a negative stigma around black graduates.
	That stigma may be unfair, but it does exist in the workplace.
	Also, if you're going to look at underperformance in the educational sense, this study from Harvard and Stanford and Yale, again, what it shows is that social fabric matters a lot, meaning that it's not just about having a dad in the home, it's about how many fathers there are in the neighborhood.
	So even kids who grew up in a single mother home, if they grew up in a neighborhood where there are lots of fathers around to provide parental figures, then they do fine.
	Black kids.
	But if they're growing up in an area where there are no fathers around, then they don't do fine.
	Hey, this is really, you know, this does demonstrate, this does demonstrate, this study, that disparity does not always equal discrimination.
	And in fact, in the 1980s, black anthropologist John Ogbu theorized that black kids were often penalized socially for acting white, meaning engaging in education.
	In 2004, Barack Obama said, quote, children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the TV sets and eradicate the slander that says that a black youth with a book is acting white.
	Ten years later, in 2014, he says there's an element of truth in the accusation that too many black parents denigrate education, where, okay, if boys are reading too much, then, well, why are you doing this?
	Or why are you speaking so properly?
	Black kids spend significantly less time on homework than any other race of children.
	Asian kids spend significantly more time on homework.
	Harvard's Roland Fryer, a black professor, formalized a, quote, particular peer effect, acting white, which potentially contributes to the ongoing puzzle of black underachievement.
	Statistically speaking, high school graduation rates are massively different between the races.
	Okay, that is not an effect of quote-unquote systemic racism.
	That is people who are not going to school.
	Okay, that is other factors that are driving kids not to go to school other than racism, presumably.
	Again, these are majority-minority schools in many cases.
	Black kids across the country have a significantly higher dropout rate.
	Graduation rates nationally, black students graduated at a rate of 69% as of 2011-2012.
	Hispanics graduated at 73%.
	Whites graduated at a rate of 86%.
	By the way, Asian Pacific Islanders nearly always graduate state by state at a higher rate than white kids.
	Or how about the idea that was pushed forward in this Michael Harriot piece that the big problem here is that in schools, black kids are punished differently than white kids.
	Well, again, that ignores the question as to whether black kids, not on an individual level, but on a group data level, are on average acting out more than white kids in school.
	The Justice and Education Departments released an annual report called Indicators of School Crime and Safety as of 2018.
	Black students self-reported, as according to Heather McDonald over at City Journal, being in a physical fight at school at over twice the rate of white students in 2015.
	A data point certainly relevant to the question of racial rates of school discipline.
	Schools that were 50% minority or more reported weekly gang activity at nearly 10 times the rate of schools where minorities constituted 5 to 20% of the population.
	Reports of gang violence in schools with less than 5% minority population were too low to be usable statistically.
	Widespread weekly disorder in classrooms was reported in schools with at least 50% minority populations at more than five times the rate as in schools with 5 to 20% minorities.
	These facts are rather relevant to judging the likelihood of student misbehavior and resulting discipline.
	So again, this article that Michael Harriot pushes is based in simple belief that all disparity equals discrimination.
	And the fact that Buttigieg didn't just bow to that in 2011 means that Buttigieg doesn't take black concerns seriously.
	But if you take black concerns seriously, then you should actually look to some of the systemic underlying factors that cannot be blamed on quote-unquote institutional racism or just throwing money at the problem.
	By the way, the same people who are blaming institutional racism and systemic discrimination are the same people who are opposing school vouchers, which would allow a lot of these kids to escape bad public schools and go to better public schools.
	Many of these same people are anti-development and gentrification, which would allow the tax base to rise in these areas and allow for more spending on local public schools.
	When it comes to post-secondary graduation rates, there's a major disparity between black and white in post-secondary graduation rates, talking about college students.
	The six-year graduation rate, this is according to the National Center for Education statistic, the six-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor's degree at a four-year degree-granting institution in fall 2010.
	Okay, again, this is six-year graduation rate at a four-year university.
	Is 74% for Asian students, 64% for white students, and 40% for black students?
	Is that due to institutional discrimination?
	According to the UCNF.org, a recent UCNF found that African-American students were more likely to take remedial college courses than any other student group.
	61% of black students who took the ACT in 2015 met none of the four ACT college readiness benchmarks, nearly twice the 31% rate for all students.
	So, again, the relatively low retention rates of black students across the nation continues the pace.
	Among students enrolled in four-year public institutions, as of 2015, 46% of black students completed their degree in six years.
	Black men were down at 40%.
	So, again, this is... To blame all of this on institutional discrimination and suggest that Pete Buttigieg is a racist because he's pointing out it's not all due to institutional discrimination demonstrates how far left the Democratic Party has moved.
	To even point this thing out makes you un-woke in the Democratic Party.
	Okay, we'll get to more of the Democratic radicalism and the agenda being embraced in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the earbuds that you are using to listen to the show.
	So maybe you're using the old-fashioned earphones, one that fit over your whole ear.
	Well, I have a better idea.
	How about you get some earbuds that are wireless and don't cost you a fortune?
	There's no need to go crazy this year.
	I'm letting you know ahead of time about an amazing Black Friday Cyber Monday deal on something you're gonna use every single day.
	A pair of wireless earbuds or headphones from Raycon.
	You guys know about Raycon, awesome company, founded by Ray J. He was sick of premium audio being so expensive, so he and a bunch of audio engineers and music industry folks developed Raycon's line of awesome wireless headphones and earbuds.
	They sound just as good as other premium brands, but they start at about half the price.
	You're saving a lot of money.
	You don't have the stems or the wires to get in your way.
	It is true wireless audio with seamless Bluetooth pairing.
	Go to buyraycon.com slash ben right now to check out Raycon's Black Friday and Cyber Monday savings.
	They're already featuring them.
	I can't tell you how good the deals will be.
	They are awesome.
	That's buyraycon.com slash ben to get an amazing Black Friday deal on Raycon.
	Now's the time to buy if you're going to.
	Buyraycon.com slash ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	Okay, we're going to get back to the extremism of the Democratic left in just one second and why this is leading President Trump toward a re-election victory.
	We're going to get to that in just one second.
	First, if you're not already a subscriber, you really are missing out.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	For as little as $10 a month, you get our articles ad-free.
	Access to all of our live broadcasts, our full show library, select bonus content, our exclusive Daily Wire app.
	Pretty awesome feature if you haven't checked it out yet.
	And with Thanksgiving break approaching, we're taking a few days off the show, But that does not mean we won't be bringing you the hard-hitting news that you crave.
	In fact, we have some pretty awesome news for Black Friday, so be sure to stop by for some awesome deals.
	Right now, by the way, if you choose that new all-access plan, you get all of the great things that come along, plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr, our brand-new Ask Me Anything-style discussion feature.
	I believe I'm doing one of those today.
	Stop depriving yourself.
	Come join the fun over at dailywire.com.
	We're the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	All righty.
	So as I say, the Democratic Party is moving in this radical direction.
	There's a reason that this hit piece on Buttigieg.
	How far left are the Democrats?
	I'm now defending Pete Buttigieg.
	That's how far left the Democrats have gone.
	Because if you're even remotely reasonable, watching Pete Buttigieg be slammed as a lying MF-er for simply suggesting that not all educational disparity is due to institutional discrimination, That should be rather off-putting to you, since what Buttigieg was saying there happens to be absolutely... He'll apologize, by the way, within 24 hours, right?
	There's no way he withstands the scrutiny on this one.
	Meanwhile, the Democrats are moving past safe, legal, and rare, according to the New York Times.
	The Democratic presidential candidates don't want to simply defend abortion rights.
	They want to go on offense, because nothing says going on offense like killing babies.
	The Democratic presidential field, according to Maggie Astor reporting for the New York Times, has coalesced around an abortion rights agenda more far-reaching than anything past nominees have proposed, according to a New York Times survey of the campaigns.
	The positions reflect a hugely consequential shift on one of the country's most politically divisive issues.
	Every single candidate the Times surveyed supports codifying Roe v. Wade in federal law, allowing Medicaid coverage of abortion by repealing the Hyde Amendment so your taxpayer dollars would pay for somebody else's abortion.
	It used to be the position of Democrats, including Joe Biden, who repeatedly voted for it, that federal taxpayer dollars should not be spent on the killing of the unborn.
	Now every single Democrat wants to change the law so that your taxpayer dollars can be spent on the killing of unborn babies.
	And every candidate wants to remove funding restrictions for organizations that provide abortion referrals.
	In other words, they want to restore all of the funding, all of the Title 10 funding for Planned Parenthood.
	Almost all of them say they would nominate only judges who support abortion rights.
	I do find it amusing, by the way, that if Republicans were to say, we will only support a judge who believes that the Constitution does not protect abortion, everybody would say, how dare they with their litmus tests?
	Judges shouldn't have litmus tests.
	Democrats are out there meanwhile being like, If that judge, right there, if I don't know that he's going to be okay with us plunging his scissors into the skull of a nine-month-old baby, well then, you know, I'm going to... That judge cannot sit.
	Don't worry, I don't have a litmus test.
	All I'm saying is skull, scissors, baby head.
	That's all I'm saying.
	All I'm saying.
	Very few support restrictions on abortion late in pregnancy.
	Seven say abortion pills should be available over-the-counter.
	Nine want a federal approval process for state abortion laws.
	So they want the federal government to have to sign off on state abortion laws, which violates principles of federalism.
	Joe Biden is seeking to recast himself as a full-throated champion of abortion rights.
	Jacqueline Ayers, VP for Government Relations and Public Policy at Planned Parenthood says, what you've seen is that it's no longer okay for any candidate just to say they're pro-choice.
	They're being very specific on how our rights are under attack, how access to abortion is being undermined in this country, and putting forth plans to protect and expand rights.
	Now, there's only one problem with all of this, which is that the vast majority of Americans want some restrictions on abortion.
	Very few Americans are for abortion-on-demand till point of birth.
	And it is obvious that the Democrats have abandoned the old language, the safe, legal, and rare language, which at least made Democrats appear ambivalent about the moral qualms surrounding the killing of the unborn.
	Instead, they're like, celebrate!
	Cheer your abortion!
	According to the New York Times, the most striking change beyond individual policies is how unapologetic candidates' tone on abortion rights has become.
	Advocates have traditionally said they support the right to choose abortion, not the abortion itself, and Democrats have said it should be safe, legal, and rare.
	Public debate has commonly centered on procedures after 20 weeks' gestation, which account for less than 1.5% of abortions.
	The discussion has often been on opponents' terms.
	Now, every candidate says the next president should actively reframe the debate.
	Their language focuses on healthcare, bodily autonomy, and even at times the idea of abortion as a positive force enabling women to control their lives and increase their economic security.
	Elizabeth Warren said in the last debate that abortion is healthcare and healthcare is a human right, and she argued that abortion rights were also economic rights.
	Pretty much everybody else avoided the language rare.
	They said it should be safe and legal, but not rare.
	Asked if they supported restrictions after 24 weeks, which is a six-month-old baby, which is when a healthy fetus can survive outside the womb generally.
	Every single Democrat said no.
	Every single Democrat, except for Joe Systack, who doesn't count, said no.
	It's absolute absurdity, but this is your new Democratic Party.
	Drag queens to defeat Trump, Pete Buttigieg is evil for suggesting that educational disparities are not entirely due to institutional discrimination, and also abortion should be safe and legal all the way to point of birth.
	This is your Democratic Party.
	And the candidates What we will do is have a 4% tax on income exempting the first $29,000.
	Alright, good.
	is out there basically acknowledging he's going to raise taxes on everybody making more than 29 grand in the United States.
	At least the dude's honest.
	Points for honesty to Bernie Sanders, who points out that his plans require taxes to be raised on everybody fairly dramatically.
	What we will do is have a 4% tax on income, exempting the first $29,000.
	All right, good.
	You're better at arithmetic than I am.
	Okay, so that is not a great pitch, but go for it, man.
	Meanwhile, you got Elizabeth Warren out there lying about her stories.
	So Elizabeth Warren has turned out to be deeply inauthentic.
	She's still telling this lie that she was fired for being visibly pregnant back in the 1970s, despite the fact that there's contemporaneous documentation showing that she was unanimously offered a re-op.
	By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant.
	And the principal did what principals did in those days.
	It's because she didn't feel like doing it.
	She's still telling this ridiculous story that she was fired for being visibly pregnant.
	This is similar to her ridiculous story that she was the first breastfeeding mother ever to take the New Jersey bar exam, which of course is false.
	Here is Elizabeth Warren saying things that aren't true.
	By the end of the first year, I was visibly pregnant.
	And the principal did what principals did in those days.
	Wished me luck and hired someone else for the job.
	Okay, well, this is just one of the fibs that she has been telling by best available evidence.
	Meanwhile, there's another fib she has been telling.
	According to Chrissy Clark at The Federalist, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts told a school choice activist last week she sent her kids to public schools.
	But new records show that her son, Alex Warren, attended private schools in both Austin, Texas and Haverford, Pennsylvania.
	The New York Post reported that Warren initially sent her son to a private school in Austin while she was a professor at University of Texas, Austin.
	But Warren also sent her son to Haverford School in Pennsylvania while she was teaching at University of Penn.
	Alex Warren was born in 1976, so he was 15 years old when he started at Haverford, and 17 years old by the time, by the end of his time there.
	Also, a yearbook photo was submitted to the Federalist.
	The same Haverford alumnus said tuition at the time of Alex Warren's graduation was approximately $11,000 a year.
	Warren told a school choice activist that her kids went to public schools.
	Right?
	A school choice activist named Sarah Carpenter said, I read that your children went to private schools, and Warren said, no, my children went to public schools, because Warren is a liar.
	This is what she does.
	But this is your modern Democratic Party, unfortunately.
	It'd be better to have a couple of reasonable parties, but unfortunately we don't.
	And the bleeding, bleeding edge of the Democratic Party still exists on college campuses, with idiots like Michael Roth, who is the Dean of Wesleyan University, has a piece at CNN.com today titled, What the Woke Student and the Welfare Queen Have in Common.
	They're both myths, don't you see, as the president of Westland.
	He says every age seems to need a bogeyman, some negative image against which good people measure themselves.
	When I entered college in the mid 1970s, the term welfare queen was being popularized by Ronald Reagan as he campaigned for president and was starting to be taken up by the mass media.
	It would soon go on to upstage the outworn commie and well-worn dirty hippie as objects of vitriol in the American political imagination.
	Self-described regular decent Americans had, in Welfare Queen, a new image against which to define themselves.
	There had long been accounts of people scamming the government in one way or another, contractors overcharging politicians on the take of crooked cops, but the trope of the Welfare Queen was nicely constructed to seep into a white American psyche, already anxious in the 1970s and 1980s about race, single mothers, and an urban culture that challenged more than a few mainstream myths.
	Says Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University.
	Today, I'm a college president and a teacher at the school known for student activism.
	And I've noticed a new trope on the scene with rising potential as a national scapegoat.
	It is the politically correct woke college students.
	If the sin of the welfare queen were crazy, laughing, crafty laziness and promiscuity, the sins of the woke so-called social justice warrior are elitist condescension and a failure to connect with the needs of real people.
	Well, so far, that description seems fairly on to me.
	Like the welfare queen, the woke student activist is a convenient type, one who unites others in opposition to what they imagine is wrong with the country.
	Young, woke people have aroused the choreographed indignation of leaders as different as Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama.
	By the way, there was an entire piece over the weekend, I believe it was in the New York Times, trying to characterize Barack Obama as a conservative.
	That's how far left the Democratic Party has moved.
	Literally called Barack Obama, the progenitor of nationalized healthcare and the creator of Obamacare, The man behind a massive stimulus package.
	The man behind heavy regulations of virtually every area of American life.
	A man behind a pusillanimous foreign policy that undercut America's allies in the world.
	That guy, they call him a conservative.
	That's how far left the Democrats have moved.
	Apparently, according to this president over at Wesleyan University, it's very bad.
	We shouldn't talk about the evils of woke college students.
	He says, denouncing college students, be they long-haired protesters of the 1960s, the environmentalist tree-huggers of the 1990s, or the pronoun policers today, is bound to please in a number of circles.
	Like the welfare queens of yore, the stereotype of the woke social justice warrior, only concerned with canceling other people, is a politically useful, if wildly misleading figure.
	Nobody wants to fit this description, and in my experience, very few actually do.
	Well, no, you are just one of the people who's making excuses for them.
	You allow the students to take over the university anytime you please.
	He says, sure, there are cases of student protesters who angrily denounce practices the previous generations thought were emblematic of fairness or free expression.
	Student newspapers at Northwestern and Harvard were criticized within the last month for soliciting a statement from ICE in the case of the Harvard Crimson and for tracking down student activists for their statement on a disruptive protest in the case of the Daily Northwestern.
	In both cases, some of the young journalists were taken off guard and wanted to apologize to their fellow students on the left.
	They were quickly pounced upon by pundits.
	Ooh, pouncing, pouncing, pouncing.
	While less attention was paid to those other students at the newspapers who defended young journalists' reporting practices and their editorial autonomy.
	It turns out there was a healthy debate in newsrooms after all.
	Says conversations about race, the economy, bias, sexual assault, climate change, or the winner-take-all economy all tend to involve strong emotions and challenging complexity.
	Sometimes people complain they don't want to speak up because they fear being criticized or stigmatized.
	But they should recognize their fear isn't somebody else's fault, isn't a sign of their environment's political correctness or hostility toward free expression.
	Their fear of speaking out is just a sign they need more courage, for it requires courage to stay engaged with difference.
	Or alternatively, if you're a conservative on college campus, you very often will face discrimination from professors and administrators.
	You'll face the hatred of your fellow students and social exclusion of your fellow students.
	And that's kind of an ugly thing on college campuses that are supposed to be promoting free speech.
	By the way, I've been shouted down at a number of universities.
	I've had friends in the past couple of weeks who've been shouted down at universities.
	This notion that woke college students are just there to enrich the debate is nonsense.
	It's nonsense.
	There's a difference between the good-hearted liberal who wants to have a conversation and the woke social justice left warriors who want to ensure that the conversation is never had.
	He says these scapegoats are meant to inspire solidarity in a group by providing an object for its hostility and educators and civic leaders should not play along.
	says Michael Roth of Wesleyan.
	Instead of arousing easy antipathy, they should strive to cultivate the robust exchange of ideas across differences.
	Yes, I am sure that Wesleyan will be hosting all sorts of conservatives to have open conversations about these issues.
	I look forward to speaking at Wesleyan with the go-ahead of the administration.
	By the way, this is the same idiot who wrote a piece in the New York Times in August called Don't Dismiss Safe Spaces, talking about how the university's primary obligation is to provide a safe space for students.
	So, at the same time he's pretending that woke students want a debate, he's suggesting that a debate itself undermines their safe spaces.
	Man, the left is moving left at an extraordinary rate and they are going to leave the voting public behind.
	Alrighty, time for a quick thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate.
	Things that I like today.
	So, Chris Pratt, the actor, has a really cool GoFundMe that he's got going.
	It's called the Win a Visit to Visit Chris Pratt on the set of The Tomorrow War.
	You can check it out at GoFundMe.com.
	Basically, he is raising a bunch of money for the Brain Treatment Foundation, which is a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to providing support for brain health initiatives relating to treatment, rehab, research, and public education.
	This organization is specifically designed to serve American combat veterans whose lives have been severely impacted by traumatic brain injury.
	Plus, if you give, you have a chance to win and visit Pratt on the set of The Tomorrow War in Atlanta, Georgia.
	So that's super cool.
	So go check it out, get some charity.
	It's pretty neat.
	So again, it's GoFundMe, and you can find it under Win a Trip to visit Chris Pratt on the set of The Tomorrow War.
	Pretty cool cause.
	All right, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	Okay, so, thing that I hate, number one, you have to acknowledge that the same media that are pushing the idea that drag queens are going to take down Trump, they may have lost all touch with reality.
	Let me give you an example.
	Joan Walsh, over at Salon.com, who lost touch with reality a long time ago, she freaked out yesterday.
	Why?
	Because President Trump brought Conan, the world's most famous dog, to the White House.
	Conan, of course, is the dog that helped chase down al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, before he blew himself up.
	Joan Walsh tweeted that she was upset by how President Trump treated the dog.
	She said, this is terrifying!
	Trump and Melania exude coldness to Conan the hero dog.
	They exude coldness.
	Don't you understand?
	Trump should have been just letting the dog jump all over him and lick him.
	I mean, it should have been like an outtake from Lassie.
	Melania, whose coat is slightly macabre to me, but others may find it lovely, moves away from Conan multiple times.
	Oh, you mean that Melania doesn't want to get dirty from the dog?
	I'm just confused here.
	It's scary if Melania isn't like riding the dog around?
	Joan Walsh says, Trump tells you how incredible this particular type of dog is repeatedly, but he clearly can't remember the name of the breed or other details.
	He tells us he really wanted the dog to be muzzled, which tells you about his fear.
	Okay, really?
	Seriously, Joan Walsh?
	So he can't remember the breed of dog, and this is evil, and also he's fearful of the dog.
	Conan is a tough cookie, we learn.
	Still nothing about his breed.
	Trump repeatedly jokes about sticking the dog on journalists.
	Also, again, his command of the language rivals maybe a five-year-old.
	Terrifying.
	Terrifying, do you understand?
	Trump said stuff about a dog.
	Now I'm old enough to remember when the media were very upset at the idea that Trump was even going to have the dog to the White House.
	And then Trump was like, sure, I'll have the dog to the White House.
	He tweeted out a meme that we made of him giving a medal to the dog.
	And the media were like, fact check!
	He hasn't given a medal to a dog!
	Fact check!
	That's not true!
	Well, Trump actually brought the dog to the White House.
	Apparently he did give a medal to the dog.
	And Joan Walsh loses her bleep over it because everything is incredibly stupid.
	So well done, Joan Walsh.
	Okay, time for one more quick thing that I hate.
	So AOC, who when she is not attending drag queen events at the Kennedy Center, is speaking idiotically about economics.
	She has an economics degree from Boston University, which really does not say a lot for Boston University.
	Here is AOC trying to explain what a public good is and failing dramatically.
	The thing about this is that, like, it is possible and it's not that we deserve it because it's a handout.
	People like to say, oh, this is about free stuff.
	This is not about free stuff.
	We're working hard individuals.
	We're working hard.
	First of all, we know this is not free stuff.
	We're already at the brink of being rent burdened.
	So first of all, this is not free stuff.
	Second of all, these are public goods.
	They're publicly...
	So I'll never want to hear the word or the term free stuff ever again.
	Well, she's shaking her head, and that means that she's very serious about this.
	Okay, she's talking here about free college.
	Free college is not a public good.
	A public good is defined by two particular factors.
	One is non-rivalry and one is non-excludability.
	Non-rivalrous means my use of the public good does not diminish your use of the public good.
	I use a water fountain, it doesn't stop you from using a water fountain.
	Non-excludable means I can't stop you from using the water fountain.
	Right, so that presumably is public good.
	A road.
	A good example of a public good.
	I can't stop you from using it, and also my use of the road does not diminish your use of the road.
	You know what a free college education has in common with that?
	Nothing.
	Nothing.
	Because it serves you, and I don't get it.
	Right?
	Your education does not have anything to do with me.
	It is not a shared good.
	It is exclusive to you.
	It is your education.
	This is just, it's an absurdity, but, you know, again, her understanding of economics is rivaled only by her knowledge of foreign policy, which is to say, she has none.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Siavitz.
	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.
	President Trump gives Conan the terrorist-chomping, canine-killing machine a plaque and a medal at the White House on the same day that he signed sweeping animal cruelty legislation.
	And while Conan is the goodest boy in the country, the law is very bad.
	We will examine our broken moral compass, all that and a lot more.

▲