Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 27, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:14

The End Of The Beginning | Ep. 906

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Elizabeth Warren collapses in the polls as Pete Buttigieg comes under fire, the media check into the gender of a dog at the White House, and America's life expectancy drops.
	Again, I'm Ben Shapiro.
	Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPNs.
	Stand up for your digital rights.
	Visit expressvpn.com slash ben.
	Well, it has been a rough week for Elizabeth Warren.
	Rough several weeks for Elizabeth Warren ever since she started actually releasing details of her plans and people realized that these plans were incredibly stupid.
	Her poll numbers have just been in free fall.
	And you've seen this in Iowa, you've seen this in New Hampshire as well.
	She has now dropped behind several candidates in New Hampshire according to the RealClearPolitics polling average.
	So according to RealClearPolitics right now, she is trailing in Iowa to Pete Buttigieg.
	She is also trailing in New Hampshire, not only to Buttigieg, but also to Bernie Sanders according to the most recent poll.
	There's a New Hampshire poll today that has Sanders at 26, Buttigieg at 22, and Warren and Biden tied at 14, which is a disaster area for Elizabeth Warren.
	She's running in third in New Hampshire according to the RCP poll average behind both Buttigieg and Sanders.
	In Iowa, she's also running third behind both Buttigieg and Sanders.
	A disaster, disaster area for Elizabeth Warren without A doubt.
	And the latest polls show that she has also dropped nationally.
	Down to third.
	She's down to third nationally.
	With Pete Buttigieg rising into double digits in the RCP polling average, Biden remains at 28% in the RCP polling average, Sanders at 18%, Warren at 17%, Buttigieg at 11%.
	And in the latest polling numbers from Quinnipiac, she has utterly fallen apart.
	According to Yahoo News, Buttigieg, the moderate millennial mayor of South Bend, Indiana, moderate, leapfrogged the race's main liberal candidates, Warren and fellow Senator Bernie Sanders, to claim second behind the resilient national leader, Joe Biden, according to Quinnipiac University's latest poll.
	Biden is still ahead with 24% among Democratic voters and independents who lean Democrat, a rise of three percentage points, a reclaiming of the poll position since Quinnipiac's last poll on October 24th when he trailed Warren.
	Buttigieg jumped from 10% to 16% in that time frame.
	Warren's support dropped from 28% to 14%.
	Which is just an utterly enormous implosion.
	Sanders is down from 16% to 13%.
	So full-on disaster area for Elizabeth Warren.
	She has got to be in a state of utter panic.
	Meanwhile, she tries to whistle past the graveyard.
	She's been suggesting that she'll choose a woman as VP.
	Well, lady, you're not gonna be the nominee, so I'm not sure that this is gonna matter.
	Here's Elizabeth Warren doing the, I'm the, I am woman, hear me lecture you.
	First, it would be entirely presumptuous of me to talk about running mates.
	I'm out here talking about why I'm running for president and asking for all of you to get out and caucus for me.
	That's how I'm going to end this.
	I'm going to ask you to get out and caucus for me.
	But I've got to say, why wouldn't I have a woman for a running mate?
	Why wouldn't you have a woman for a running mate?
	Because you're not going to be the presidential nominee.
	That's why you're not going to have a woman for a running mate.
	By the way, someone, I get this frequently on my sort of public email address, very kind folks on the left, will sign me up to the mailing list of places like Planned Parenthood and, as it turns out, the Elizabeth Warren campaign.
	And I received this email from Senator Warren today, quote, Thanks for being a part of the conversation about how we can make big structural change in our country.
	For Elizabeth, the fight to level the playing field for working families is personal.
	When she was growing up in Oklahoma, her family barely hung on by their fingernails.
	Her dad had a heart attack when she was 12, and her mom saved their home by getting a minimum wage job answering the phones at Sears.
	Elizabeth graduated from a public commuter college that cost $50 a semester, and it opened a million doors for her.
	She went on to become a public school teacher, law professor, U.S.
	Senator, and now a presidential candidate because she grew up at a time when America invested in kids like her.
	Okay, so this is why her pitch falls flat.
	This is a lady who really has had a pretty wonderful American life.
	Moaning about how terrible America is.
	And let me just note the timeline here.
	She is now 70 years old.
	So her dad had a heart attack when she was 12.
	That means that her dad had a heart attack in 1961.
	And her suggestion is that the federal government spends less in terms of resources now than they did in 1961.
	Which is patently absurd.
	That's even before the Great Society programs.
	Right?
	None of that makes any sense whatsoever.
	When she suggests that her mom saved their home by getting a minimum wage job answering the phones at Sears, was the minimum wage higher or lower back in 1961?
	When she suggests that she graduated from a public commuter college that cost 50 bucks a semester, yes, because that is not inflation adjusted from 1967.
	Also, there are public commuter colleges.
	They still exist.
	So, the entire pitch that she is making, that somehow America has grown crueler, that somehow America has grown Less spendthrift, less willing to spend on the American public is just untrue.
	The government is spending $4 trillion a year.
	We're running a $1 trillion a year deficit.
	We're spending more than we ever have.
	It is not close.
	And yet Elizabeth Warren is trying to maintain that she had it better in 1961, and at the same time suggesting that the governing system in 1961 was somehow much better than it is now.
	Which, again, I'm gonna have to call BS on that one because it's absolute nonsense.
	So Warren is completely falling apart.
	And the more people see of her, the less they like her.
	Well, now the question becomes, will the same thing happen to Pete Buttigieg?
	So the press are out to get Buttigieg now.
	They do not want Buttigieg to be the nominee.
	They were in love with Elizabeth Warren.
	She made them feel good about themselves.
	Buttigieg makes them feel okay about themselves, but not as great as they could, because the fact is that Buttigieg has only gained momentum again by pushing back to the center.
	Again, he launched his campaign as a sort of centrist By the way, you wonder why Cory Booker is staying in the race?
	Why Amy Klobuchar is staying in the race?
	The answer is because everybody in the Democratic field at this point has to understand that this is now a revolving wheel.
	It's the wheel of fortune.
	And he has fought against Elizabeth Warren on that basis and gained polling credibility.
	By the way, you wonder why Cory Booker is staying in the race, why Amy Klobuchar is staying in the race.
	The answer is because everybody in the Democratic field at this point has to understand that this is now a revolving wheel.
	It's the wheel of fortune.
	And wherever that wheel stops, you may be the next leader in the polls.
	They've already gone through Biden- They've gone through Warren.
	They've gone through Sanders.
	They're going to go through Buttigieg.
	And then people are going to start taking a second look at some of these candidates.
	That's why Kamala Harris is desperately attempting to stay in the race.
	It's why Cory Booker is staying in the race.
	It's why Klobuchar is staying in the race.
	Klobuchar, most of all, maybe, because she figures that as a moderate, maybe she will pick up Buttigieg's pieces if Buttigieg should get stomped on by the media.
	Which by the way is incredibly likely.
	I'll give you the update on that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about how you can save for the holidays.
	So literally yesterday, I bought some shirts for the holidays and as I am checking out, honey, this app pops up.
	And it proceeds to save me like 30 bucks.
	This happened just yesterday because Honey is great.
	Honey is a free browser extension that automatically finds the best promo codes whenever you shop online.
	Honey has found over 10 million members, over a billion dollars in savings.
	Honey supports over 20,000 stores online.
	It works at every site from Amazon to Express.
	I mean, literally all the sites where you shop, you can check them out through Honey.
	If you're buying gifts this holiday season, you need Honey.
	If you're not, you probably know someone who is, so do them a solid and tell them about Honey.
	It is pretty much free money in your pocket.
	Honey can help make sure that you're getting the best price for whatever it is you're buying.
	It's free to use.
	It installs in just two clicks.
	Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash ben.
	That is joinhoney.com slash ben.
	Again, I've been using this browser extension for probably a couple of years, and I've saved myself thousands of dollars in prices I wouldn't need to pay because of Honey.
	Honey is just great.
	Check them out at joinhoney.com slash ben.
	Costs you nothing.
	Get Honey for free.
	Joinhoney.com slash ben.
	Okay, so.
	The media attacks on Pete Buttigieg have just begun, because the media loved, loved, loved Elizabeth Warren, and they are a little bit more split on Pete Buttigieg, who they don't really understand.
	The attack on Pete Buttigieg has largely come based on the notion that he has no appeal to black voters.
	This, of course, is true.
	If you look at his polling numbers among black voters, they absolutely stink.
	They are awful.
	They are worse than Bernie Sanders, because he's not as famous as Bernie Sanders.
	They're worse than Elizabeth Warren, who basically had no black support.
	W. Kamau Bell, Who hosted one of the worst shows on CNN for several years there.
	It was this travel show and it was just awful.
	If you've ever been stuck in an airport watching W. Kamau Bell talk to Spring Breakers down in Florida, you'll know what I'm talking about.
	Anyway, W. Kamau Bell tweeted out, We're about to find out how someone can get less than 0% of the black vote.
	Why?
	Well, because Pete Buttigieg, back in 2011, suggested that kids from lower income minority neighborhoods don't have someone they know personally who testifies to the value of education.
	Which happens to be true.
	Okay, disproportionately that is true.
	That doesn't mean everybody in low-income minority communities doesn't testify to the value of education.
	It means that if you have a single-parent household, there are other priorities very often in that household.
	It does mean, Barack Obama has said this, that in many cases there is a stigma on higher education.
	There's a stigma on quote-unquote acting white.
	Okay, Roland Fryer over at Harvard University has said exactly the same thing.
	We talked about a lot of the statistics on education yesterday in terms of the education differential, and we also talked about the fact...
	That if you adjust for income, then what you see is that black women actually go to college at a higher rate than white men do.
	So what happened to the racism?
	What happened to the racism?
	It turns out that this really is not about race.
	It is about where you grow up.
	It is about the culture where you grow up.
	It is about whether there are a number of fathers in the area.
	Not just a father in the home, but a number of fathers in the area.
	Right, all of that matters.
	Well, Pete Buttigieg said all that, and then he just got shellacked by this guy named Michael Harriot over at The Root, and it went viral yesterday.
	Well, now, Pete Buttigieg called up Michael Harriot, and Michael Harriot writes this really ridiculous piece about how he lectured Pete Buttigieg, which makes him a hero, because having a conversation is one thing, but lecturing somebody is totally great.
	I mean, lecturing somebody when they call you up is just, it shows how strong you are.
	And it shows how wonderful you are, and you've really added to the debate by lecturing a presidential candidate who, by the way, said something eminently reasonable that we are all going to rip him up and down for right now.
	The praise that is being received by Michael Harriot for his writing style, again, it is just another sort of Ta-Nehisi Coates, James Baldwin knockoff where you insert random anecdotes that are supposed to make people feel.
	It's very purple, it's very over-the-top, but because people feel and because they are passionate, this means that the writing is good.
	Because writing is only good when it's very passionate.
	Not when it is reason.
	Not when there's an actual argument.
	Just when it's very passionate.
	And when, apparently, you yell at a presidential candidate.
	So, Michael Harriot has a follow-up.
	Apparently, Pete Buttigieg saw his piece yesterday in which he called Pete Buttigieg a lying MF-er.
	And Pete Buttigieg called him up.
	Which, by the way, good for Pete Buttigieg.
	I've done the same thing.
	I mean, there are a number of people who have attacked me over the years in print.
	I've reached out to them.
	Some of them are jerks.
	I won't name names.
	Some of them have been quite nice, and we've become friendly.
	So Pete Buttigieg did the right thing.
	He called this guy up.
	And this guy proceeded to lecture Pete Buttigieg, and then suggest that Pete Buttigieg is better in his eyes because he's a white man who listened to him.
	I mean, the piece is really absurd.
	Michael Harriot says, the first thing you should know about me is that I absolutely hate talking on the phone.
	Well, I think the first thing we should know about you is that you call people lying MFers based on political disagreements.
	That seems like a pretty good thing to know.
	But he says, My friends, family, and co-workers all know this about me.
	I'm not the talk.
	It's not the talking that bothers me.
	It's the anticipation angst from waiting for a phone call.
	Therapy and self-reflection have informed me that my subconscious anxiety is fueled by the fact that I've received news of personal and family tragedies via telephone.
	Oh god, this is so over the top and people praising this sort of writing.
	It's just, ugh.
	Why would you praise this sort of self-indulgent bullcrap?
	He says, Also, talking bothers me.
	The second thing you should know about me is that I will fight.
	I don't enjoy fighting.
	I don't even fight very well, says Michael Harriot.
	In fact, if I combine my amateur fistfighting record, my jiu-jitsu sparring, all of my slapboxing exhibitions, and the times of Vollen Jackson tapped me for talking smack while running a Boston honor in spades, my winning percentage is well below 500.
	But I believe fisticuffs are a legitimate way to settle disputes, while arguments are usually pointless exercises to get one party to proclaim why the other party is wrong.
	I'd rather you beat me up.
	So, when I received the text message from South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign about an article I wrote.
	I genuinely hoped he was going to send four or five of his thugs over to rough me up and that would be it.
	And if you don't believe there are Pete Buttigieg supporters out there willing to throw hands, you probably aren't on Twitter.
	I figured one of his surrogates would argue with me for a few minutes and I would continue my day trying to be a thorn in the side of white supremacy.
	Wow.
	I mean, does this guy ever puncture his ego?
	Ever?
	He says, the third thing you should know about me is that I actually keep a small photo of the mouse from Pinky and the Brain beside my bed that says, what are you going to do today, Michael?
	The answer is always the same.
	F with white people.
	What a joy this guy seems.
	I mean, really, he seems like an absolute joy.
	So Pete Buttigieg calls him up.
	And the first thing he says is, I don't think I've ever been called a lying MF-er before.
	And this guy says, well, I thought maybe he does want to fight.
	And then he starts telling stories about one time when he had a cousin who said a thing.
	Really, that's completely irrelevant.
	But since he inserted it in the middle of the piece, it's supposed to have some sort of deeper meaning.
	And then he gets back to the conversation.
	He says, Pete Buttigieg didn't want to tell me his side of the story.
	He didn't excuse himself by explaining that the comments referenced by the article were made years ago.
	He didn't even try to explain his plan for black America.
	I think the context was important, especially the fact that it was before I took office, Buttigieg said, but mostly he wanted to listen.
	For 18 minutes and 45 seconds, we talked about educational inequity, inequality, poverty, and institutional racism in America and how to fix it.
	Okay, I'm lying.
	I don't know how to fix Bleep.
	As I explained to the presidential candidate, For some reason I had to refrain from reflexively calling him Mr. President.
	My problem with his comments was not only that they were wrong, it's that he knows they were wrong.
	This is the part that's so gross about the Michael Harriot attack, is it can't just be a good faith disagreement about the sources of educational inequality and outcome inequality.
	It has to be that Pete Buttigieg is badly motivated.
	That it was all about how Pete Buttigieg is actually a person who has internalized racism and doesn't even realize it.
	And then Michael Harriot basically just transcribes all of the things that he bravely told people to judge.
	We have to disabuse ourselves from the notion that the problem with educational inequality is because of an esoteric lack of support.
	I explained that's a lie.
	And a man as educated as yourself knows it's a lie.
	And to regurgitate that narrative publicly is not just dangerous.
	It is malpractice.
	I conceded.
	He said that the problems with institutional racism are so complex and go back so far, I'm not sure that anyone, a mayor, a governor, even a president, could fix them.
	Buttigieg, however, insisted there are some things that people in power could do to make things more equal, a point I actually agreed with.
	I do think there are some ways to attack these issues with policies that might solve these issues, but would certainly help, he said.
	But did you disagree with the point I was making, Buttigieg asked, listing a few programs designed to alleviate this specific problem?
	Sometimes children don't get to see the possibilities.
	Do you think the lack of positive examples of educational success can lead to mistrust and a lack of confidence in the system?
	No.
	Well, yes, I answered.
	But the lack of confidence doesn't have anything to do with role models or support from parents.
	It's because the bleep is true.
	Right?
	Lack of confidence in the educational system?
	Dropping out of school in high school?
	That's obviously a reflection of truth.
	As opposed to Michael Harriot, who, as he discussed in his column yesterday, went to college and proceeded to get himself a job.
	And walked the... walked the board... walked the ditch between his lower-income side of town and his school.
	And then he goes on to talk about how every study in DataPoint shows that racism is baked into the education system.
	Well, not every study in DataPoint shows that, actually.
	He says, if your goal was to fix the problem in America's schools, why would you even mention confidence?
	A president can't fix confidence, and you can't say black kids don't have confidence in the system without pointing out all the reasons they shouldn't have confidence in the system.
	And then Buttigieg agreed, right?
	Then Buttigieg did what he is expected to do.
	He agreed that the family values argument has no place in political discussions because, as I noted, it infers that black parents don't know the importance of a healthy family structure.
	However, the issues that cause these problems are rooted in poverty, inequality, and America's history of racism.
	So in other words, if you get pregnant out of wedlock, Like 71% of all of the children born in the black community, their parents have, then that is poverty, inequality, and systemic racism, not you had sex before being married and then got pregnant without being married and then had a kid without being married.
	No, it's got to be about systemic racism.
	The end of this piece is the part that matters.
	Michael Harriot says, here's why black voters support black candidates.
	When you go into a room and sit around a table of white men, we are worried that this is what will happen.
	That a room full of white people will talk about role models and confidence in crime.
	And no one in the room will say, hold up.
	We can't talk about any of this without talking about racism.
	We can't talk about education without talking about discrimination.
	That is our fear.
	Well, I have a question.
	If you just suggested throughout the piece that you have no solutions to the problems of racism and discrimination, that those problems are unsolvable, right?
	This is what Michael Harriot himself says.
	Then, are you basically just expecting that politics is a group therapy session?
	And that politics is designed to relieve people of individual responsibility to make the decisions that they can make to make their lives better?
	And then of course he tells another story, and his story is supposed to be very moving, and then he gets back to Buttigieg.
	And I'll give you the end of this ridiculous piece in a second.
	Again, the attacks on Buttigieg are not going to cease.
	And this particular attack, being cheered on by the intersectional woke Twitterites, It's ridiculous.
	This particular attack is an attack on a perfectly valid point of view, the booty judge expressed, but because he's white, he's not allowed to say it.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the quality of your bedding.
	So, if you are lacking in sleep quality this holiday season, maybe you have a great mattress.
	Maybe you already went and got one.
	Maybe everything in your room is sleep set, right?
	You don't have the blue light right before you go to sleep, but you're still not getting the sleep you need.
	Perhaps that has something to do With the sheets upon which you are sleeping.
	This is why you need Bolin Branch.
	Bolin Branch sheets are so good, that I got rid of literally all the other sheets in my house, and we only use Bolin Branch.
	Everything Bolin Branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure 100% organic cotton.
	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, but Bull & Branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
	Shipping is free.
	You can try them for 30 nights.
	There's no risk, no reason not to give them a try.
	Try Bull & Branch sheets.
	You will, indeed, love them.
	To get you started, right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com.
	Promo code Ben.
	Go to bullandbranch.com today for $50 off your first set of sheets.
	That is B-O-L-L and branch.com.
	Promo code Ben.
	bullandbranch.com.
	Promo code Ben.
	So good, you're gonna get rid of all the other sheets in your house.
	Bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben, and you get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets.
	Okay, so this article from Michael Harriot, which is, again, the second of a two-part series, the first calling Pete Buttigieg a lying MF-er, the second basically saying that he is a nice white man, meaning he has no ability to change anything, but at least he listens to me.
	He says, Pete Buttigieg is a white man.
	I didn't say it like that.
	I told him he was obviously intelligent.
	I told him he was lucky to have all the privileges he was afforded.
	I told him it was clear that he was hardworking.
	But, I said, you're a white man.
	A mediocre white kid with mediocre intelligence and mediocre parents can easily make it in America.
	I explained, blackly.
	And this is exactly the parallel to when he suggested that Buttigieg's talk about education was Buttigieg explaining whitely.
	See, it's not that he is saying something right or wrong, it's that he is saying something from a black perspective and therefore it is inherently correct.
	That is the point that Harriet is making.
	Is that a smart black kid with smart parents and a supportive community still has to fight every day to hope to reach the levels of what a mediocre white man accomplishes.
	Okay, first of all, untrue.
	If you wanna say a black male, then perhaps you have more statistical support.
	If you wanna say black kid, false.
	As I just mentioned, black women who grow up in similar circumstances to white women actually do better than white women in terms of income and college education.
	Black men have a different problem.
	In fact, black men growing up in the top 1% of family household income are still as likely to be arrested as a white kid growing up at $36,000 level of income.
	That is not due to systemic criminal justice racism.
	That's a bigger problem than that.
	That is personal behavior, because people aren't being arrested just for the sake of being arrested.
	But this notion that if you are black, you're inherently behind the eight ball in the United States, no matter what decisions you make, no matter what decisions you make or the household you grew up in, the data is just not there to support that.
	And then Harriet concludes, he says, the only thing I actually know about Pete Buttigieg is that he is a white man, which is the most racist statement ever, right?
	I mean, that's truly racist to suggest that all you know about Pete Buttigieg, not what he has said about his policies, not what his record has been.
	Again, you're turning me into a Pete Buttigieg supporter here or defender here because the left is so rampantly ridiculous here.
	He says, the only thing I actually know about Pete Buttigieg is that he is a white man.
	Because, he says, as I told the mayor, the article wasn't meant to inspire outrage.
	Its purpose was to make a necessary point about black voters and real issues.
	There is no way I can know if he is genuinely interested in engaging black voters, attacking discrimination, or crossing the racial divide.
	There are an infinite number of candidates who have waded into black barbershops or sashayed into black pulpits to assure us that they were on our side when they were only interested in our vote.
	I am not smart or prescient enough to tell the difference.
	But, you suggested earlier in the article that black voters support black candidates because you do know by the color of their skin that they're not just there to live off your vote.
	He says, the only thing I actually know about Pete Buttigieg is that he is a white man.
	But, Pete Buttigieg, listen, which is all you can ask a white man to do.
	Unless, of course, he wants to fight.
	That's all you can ask a white man to do, is listen.
	Because he's just a white guy, guys.
	This is such a racist take on America, but it is being echoed on Twitter.
	This article, too, was trending on Twitter.
	You're not going to solve any of the problems that plague the educational system if your first move is to declare that anyone who calls out problems you don't like is somehow endemic of white racism.
	And that the only thing you can talk about, according to Michael Harriot, is exactly the stuff that you can't solve.
	It's just, it's an absurdity piled on an absurdity, but this is part of a broader media attack on Buttigieg.
	By the way, Huffington Post, which has been openly supporting Elizabeth Warren at this point, they launched another attack on Buttigieg over the last 24 hours, attacking his super PAC.
	According to Huffington Post, his PAC, dubbed Hitting Home, It was designed to mobilize resources to elect Democrats at every level and in communities both red and blue, who will put the lived experiences of Americans front and center.
	And he said that they would support candidates focusing on showing voters what we are for, not just what we are against.
	In 2020, Buttigieg shut down the group or when he started his race.
	The PAC had done pretty much nothing to help Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections.
	Of the slightly more than $400,000 Buttigieg raised for the PAC, it donated just $37,000 to other Democratic candidates.
	At the same time, the PAC paid nearly $70,000 to Liz Smith, who served as Buttigieg's spokesperson and became the communications director for his presidential bid.
	Another $30,000 went to Michael Schmuel, who served as the PAC's treasurer and is now a Buttigieg campaign manager.
	The PAC's financial director received $34,000.
	A top Democratic media consulting firm was paid $28,000.
	The PAC helped Buttigieg catapult from a well-credentialed mayor of 100,000 population College Town to a leading contender for the nation's highest office.
	Buttigieg suggested that the PAC's low rate of support for other Democrats was because of a failure to raise money.
	Some of the PAC's admin costs were similar to those of other presidential contenders.
	He spent about $77,000 on accountant's compliance legal fees.
	Biden spent $67,000.
	Kamala Harris's group spent $90,000.
	But the PAC was not exactly doing what it was billed to do.
	So Huffington Post coming after Pete Buttigieg as well.
	Now, meanwhile, the Democrats may be beginning to realize that they do, in fact, have to tack to the center if they hope to win the 2020 election, because the fact is that they have moved far too radical.
	And you know who's leading that charge?
	Barack Obama.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, do you have a bunch of pictures that are sitting at your house and they need frames?
	But the fact is that if you go down to the local frame shop, it's going to cost you an absolute fortune.
	Well, good news for you.
	FrameBridge makes it easy and affordable to frame your favorite things, from art prints and posters to all your best photos.
	And with the holidays fast approaching, FrameBridge is a perfect way to give ridiculously easy and thoughtful gifts.
	Here's how it works.
	You go to framebridge.com, you upload your photo, you can preview your item online in a variety of frame styles or select one of their best-selling designs.
	The expert team at the FrameBridge factory will then custom frame your item and deliver the finished piece straight to you or to anyone on your list.
	A handmade personalized gift from Framebridge starts at $39.
	All shipping is free.
	My listeners will get 15% off their first order at framebridge.com when they use my promo code Shapiro.
	I've used Framebridge before.
	They make it supremely easy.
	And again, it's not going to cost you an arm and a leg to basically get stuff custom framed.
	It's pretty awesome.
	Become a gift giving legend.
	Use Framebridge to give high quality, one of a kind gifts that you can order in minutes.
	Go to framebridge.com.
	Use promo code Shapiro.
	You'll save an additional 15% off your first order.
	Just Barack Obama, of all people, is telling Democrats that they've swung too far to the left.
	promo code Shapiro.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile, the Democrats are beginning to realize that they have swung too far to the left.
	Barack Obama, of all people, is telling Democrats that they've swung too far to the left.
	Politico had an article yesterday in which Barack Obama's aides were quoted as saying that Obama might have stepped in, in the middle of this presidential race, to stop Bernie Sanders if he thought Sanders was going to be the nominee.
	Okay.
	According to Ryan Lizzo's report over at Politico, back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.
	One advisor told Liza he can't confirm that.
	He hasn't said that directly to me, said the advisor.
	The only reason I'm hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we'd all have to say something, but I don't think that's likely.
	It's not happening.
	So the Democrats are beginning to realize that the full-scale embrace of Medicare-for-all democratic socialism is not going to be a successful strategy.
	This is particularly true in the swing states.
	Really interesting article by Nate Cohen and Claire Miller over at the New York Times today called, They Voted Democrat, Now They Support Trump.
	Talking about how in 2018, a bunch of people who had supported Trump in 2016 voted for the Democrats, and now they're swinging back to Trump for 2020.
	According to the New York Times, success in the midterms might not mean as much for Democratic presidential candidates as the party might think.
	Nearly two-thirds of voters in six battleground states who voted for Trump in 2016 but for Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 say they intend to back the president against each of his top rivals, according to recent polling by the New York Times' upshot Siena College.
	The results suggest the party's winning formula in last year's midterm elections may not be so easy to replicate in a presidential election.
	The Democrats, relatively moderate House candidates, succeeded in large part by flipping a crucial segment of voters who backed the president in 2016.
	If those voters remain open-minded again in 2020, Democrats will have a ready-made blueprint for winning back the crucial Rust Belt battleground.
	The group is only a sliver of the electorate, 2% of registered voters, not representative of all voters, They're overwhelmingly white, 60% are male, two-thirds have no college degree.
	But the president's strength among them helps explain why he is highly competitive in states the Democrats carried just one year ago.
	Many of the voters who said they voted Democrat, but now intended to vote for Trump, offered explanations that reflect long-standing theories about why the party out of power tends to excel in midterms.
	So, for example, some of these Democrats, people who voted Democrat in 2018, suggested that congressional Democrats had pledged to bring jobs back.
	Some of them had sought to balance out Trump by electing as they are splitting the ticket.
	They're voting Democrat for Congress, but Republican for the presidency.
	And it turns out that a lot of these people just believe that the Democrats have lost touch with the generic swing state voter.
	Some voters say they are preparing to take the leap to vote for Trump after supporting both Democratic congressional candidates in 2018 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
	In the survey from the New York Times, 7% of people who supported Clinton in 2016 said they now approved of the president's performance despite his personality and his Twitter account.
	According to Juliana, California, 57, a nurse from Coral Springs, Florida, she said in 2016, I hated both candidates.
	I went with Hillary because Trump had no history as a politician.
	She said he's not exactly the person I'd have as my best friend of Trump, but he's a great president.
	Most politicians just talk about doing things, but Trump actually does things.
	People on the Democratic side also like Trump's talk about the unions and trade.
	So in other words, Trump is running pretty durable in the swing states that he actually needs to win, which is pretty fascinating.
	One of the reasons why you're seeing Democrats.
	Embracing at an electoral level Biden and Buttigieg, right?
	Biden and Buttigieg, the support level for those two candidates is far greater than the support level for Warren and Sanders in the latest polling data.
	Which means that the left wing of the party is actually losing.
	Again.
	And there's a reason for that because the fact is Democrats understand that if Trump runs against the radical left of the party, he's likely to win.
	And President Trump did a rally last night and he made the case against the Democrats and it is a very good case.
	Here's President Trump.
	Defend privacy, free speech, free assembly, religious liberty, and the right to keep and bear arms.
	And above all, we will never stop fighting for the sacred values that bind us together as one beautiful country, as one America.
	Okay, I mean, that pitch is a better pitch than the Democrats' Medicare for all, drag queens will take down Trump, the more radical wing of the Democratic Party.
	That stuff is not going to play, particularly in the swing states, which is one of the reasons why Michael Bloomberg is even throwing his hat into the race.
	We'll get to Michael Bloomberg in just one second.
	Let's talk about how hiring can be a challenge.
	I mean, the fact is that you're constantly looking to upgrade your business.
	Let's say that you have a producer.
	Like, say a producer named Mike.
	And let's say that one of his only jobs before the show is to ensure that the microphone that is strung up your shirt so that you can actually speak into the microphone is there.
	And then you start the show, and then you realize that the microphone is not on your shirt.
	And let's say you're like, you know what, Mike?
	This has happened one too many times.
	I don't care that you play a great bass guitar.
	I'm not okay with this.
	It's time to upgrade our producers.
	Well then, perhaps you would look to I'm not, that's just an example.
	I'm not saying it actually happened that way.
	Then you should check out ZipRecruiter.com.
	ZipRecruiter makes things supremely easy.
	Well, what do they do?
	First, they post your job and then basically they invite people who are qualified to apply for your job so you get qualified candidates fast.
	With results like that, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
	Try ZipRecruiter for free.
	At this web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire, that's ziprecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Ziprecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Okay, before we go any further, I also have to remind you of something.
	I'm about to say something I never thought I would say.
	You ready for this?
	Do not buy a membership to Daily Wire today.
	Don't do it today.
	Why?
	Because I'm going to save you some money.
	This Friday is Black Friday.
	I have some Daily Wire insider information about some amazing deals for you.
	Hold on to your money now.
	Wait until Friday for the best deal we have ever offered in the history of The Daily Wire.
	You will thank me later.
	And then you should subscribe on Friday, right?
	Like, just hold off, do it on Friday.
	And then, once you're a subscriber, you get our articles ad-free, you get access to all of our live broadcasts, our full show library, select bonus content, our exclusive Daily Wire app, which is a pretty fantastic feature if you have not yet checked it out.
	Plus, if you choose the new all-access plan, you get all of that plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	And our brand new Ask Me Anything style discussion feature that allows you to engage our hosts, writers, and special guests on a weekly basis.
	Again, wait until Friday for the best deal we have ever offered.
	You will thank me later.
	Also, one of the reasons you should subscribe, you get our Sunday special on Saturday.
	This Sunday special, we have an overload of yarmulkes because stopping by is Yoram Hazony, the scholar on nationalism.
	He has a great book out about the virtue of nationalism.
	I know a lot of nationalism talk lately.
	We had Rich Lowry on, now we're having Yoram Hazony on.
	Yoram's a really interesting thinker.
	So you're going to want to check that out.
	Here's a little bit of what it sounded like.
	Look, I live in a socialist country.
	No one dislikes socialism as much as I do.
	It's totally intolerable.
	I don't want anybody to live like that.
	I don't want Americans to live like that.
	I'm not on that side.
	But if they're going to tell me that economics, which is the science of the choosing free consenting individual, can answer the basic problems America has today, that's false.
	So Jorm's a really, really interesting thinker.
	I really enjoy his work.
	Also a personal friend.
	So it's pretty cool and interesting discussion.
	So you get all of those wonderful things.
	Also, again, day after Thanksgiving, buy the subscription then.
	Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and make the magic happen for yourself.
	It really is fantastic.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So it is because the Democrats are beginning to realize they've skewed too far to the left and Michael Bloomberg is jumping in the race.
	What exactly is his strategy?
	Well, he's going to skip Iowa, he's going to skip New Hampshire, he's going to skip all the early states, and he's going to skip the debates.
	Sean Trent has an interesting piece over at RealClearPolitics in which he basically says that what Bloomberg is betting is that Biden might get knocked out early and then Bloomberg becomes sort of the moderate choice to supplant Biden if Biden starts to drop in the polls.
	Sean Trent says, if Bloomberg were to enter early contests, he'd become an immediate threat.
	His opponents would take shots at him for all of the above mentioned issues, right?
	All of his running of New York and stop and frisk and all of that kind of stuff.
	If he avoids the scrum, Biden has finite resources and has to decide whether to spend $5 million attacking Bloomberg, who's waiting in the wings, or to spend that $5 million attacking Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg.
	That seems like an easy choice.
	Again, while Bloomberg is largely being ignored by his competitors, he can define himself in later states.
	Sean Trend, who's an elections analyst over at RealClearPolitics, he says, whoever emerges from the first floor contests is likely to be bloodied and perhaps cash strapped.
	It is even possible it will be Sanders and Warren who stagger out of South Carolina.
	At that point, if Biden has tanked in Iowa and New Hampshire, Bloomberg is the only viable option for Democratic moderates and establishment liberals.
	This probably won't work, but Bloomberg can easily drop 500 million bucks on this race and still live out the rest of his years quite comfortably.
	There's a chance the stars will align and he becomes the next president of the U.S.
	It isn't a particularly bad bet to make.
	That is why Michael Bloomberg is sticking around.
	It's why you're seeing all of the other Democrats sticking around.
	They're figuring that with all the attacks on Buttigieg, Buttigieg is likely to drop in the polls sometime in the near future.
	Meanwhile, controversy breaks out at the White House over the stupidest possible topic.
	So, We are big fans of Conan the Dog.
	Big fans of Conan the Dog here at the Daily Wire.
	We created a meme that President Trump then tweeted out.
	It was a picture of President Trump giving the Medal of Pawner, because it had a paw on it, to Conan.
	Conan, of course, is the dog that chased down Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who then blew himself up in a tunnel.
	The dog was slightly wounded and is now fine.
	So Trump had him to the White House yesterday.
	And this turned into a major controversy because the White House claimed that Conan was a boy, but the Pentagon suggested that Conan was a girl, and the media went nuts over this.
	They went nuts over this.
	They then suggested that the White House and the Pentagon had changed their story to match... I'm not kidding you.
	To match the White House's take on all of this.
	So you had journalists, blue check marks, reporting hot news on Conan's gender.
	Luis Martinez over at ABC.
	Update to the Conan gender.
	Another U.S.
	defense official now says for sure that Conan the Hero Dog is a male based on multiple internal checks.
	John Roberts of Fox suggested that there had to be regular updates.
	There's no Conan as female again, according to some reports.
	The one photo I've seen of the relevant area definitely looks like the dog has lady parts, but the resolution, admittedly, is not great.
	So you had all of these reporters who were checking into the genitals of the dog, which, by the way, is not the way I've been informed by the people who know in the scientific community.
	I've been informed by folks who know that that is not the way you check the gender of a dog.
	You ask the dog.
	You have to check the dog's gender and or species identity, because gender and sex are completely different, and perhaps the dog feels like a female dog, even if it is a biologically male dog.
	So just looking at the gender, that is the sex assigned at birth to the dog.
	Let's not be, in any way, intolerant on this particular issue.
	Well, Kellyanne Conway decided to play a game with the press yesterday.
	They asked her about the gender of the dog, and she simply refused to answer the question, which is quite hilarious.
	Here she was yesterday.
	Can we just get you to definitively say the sex of Conan?
	No, I won't do that.
	You don't know if it's a boy or a girl?
	No, I won't do that because then you'll say that I was talking about somebody's sex or gender.
	So I'm not doing that.
	Well, it's just a dog.
	Is it a good boy or a good girl?
	We don't talk about sex in the White House breaking room.
	So this prompted an actual editorial piece from Molly Roberts at the Washington Post called, How the White House Ruined the Hero Dog.
	No, I'm pretty sure it's you guys who ruined the hero dog, because everybody was pretty much on board with the hero dog.
	And then you guys started fact-checking whether or not the President of the United States had actually given a medal to the hero dog, like, three weeks ago.
	And then Trump has the dog there, and you start moaning, you start bitching and moaning about why the President wasn't nice enough to the hero dog, and how there was a big controversy over the sex of the dog.
	I definitely trust you guys on these issues.
	By the way, do I really think that the media even care about facts?
	No, I don't.
	I think that they have an agenda.
	I think it's pretty obvious they have an agenda.
	Speaking of which, my friend Andy Ngo, who's been a guest on the radio show several times, he was suspended from Twitter on Monday.
	Why?
	Well, he posted statistically accurate information about violence against transgenders in the United States in response to former first daughter Chelsea Clinton, according to Amanda Prestigiacomo over at Daily Wire.
	No posted in a tweet that earned him a suspension.
	He was suspended for this.
	of the safest countries for trans people.
	The murder rate of trans victims is actually lower than that for the cis population.
	Also, who is behind the murders?
	Mostly black men.
	He was suspended for this.
	He was suspended from Twitter for this because journalism, guys.
	Because if you actually state a statistically verifiable fact, you must be banned from Twitter if that statistically verifiable fact is offensive.
	This is the direction we are now moving.
	The media fact-checking the genitals of dogs, and Twitter banning people who state statistically verifiable statements about violence against transgender people in the United States.
	No was who notified by Twitter that he had been suspended for violating the tech giant's rule against so-called hateful content.
	No said in a statement, quote, stating a verifiable empirical claim with no value judgment attached is determined to be hateful conduct by Twitter.
	The platform mostly used by journalists to communicate and counter fake news also actively punishes individuals for communicating truths when they are deemed politically inconvenient.
	This was, No had posted this in response to Chelsea Clinton writing, since 2013, more than 150 trans people have been murdered in the US, the majority black transgender women.
	On Transgender Rights Day in 2019, Transgender Day of Remembrance 2019, we remember and honor the lives lost, hold their loved ones in our hearts, and must commit to doing all we can to end this epidemic of violence and hate.
	The statistical information provided by NOW is actually also provided by the Human Rights Commission, the same organization that Clinton centered her Transgender Day of Remembrance tweet around.
	I mean, Chad Felix Green, who has outlined this in the Federalist, he says, of the 118 cases listed from 2015 to 2019, 52 have known murderers.
	The above chart reveals that the racial identity of the victim and the murderer seem entirely irrelevant to the murder motivation.
	While 67% of the victims are indeed black and the majority are trans women, as reported, the majority of their killers are black as well.
	This is true for white victims and a single Native American victim who was murdered by a Native American killer.
	It's not shocking, of course, that no was banned from Twitter, because this is the same platform that banned feminist writer Megan Murphy for suggesting that men are men and women are women.
	Yes, facts rule the day in the world of social media, as well as in the media as well.
	Speaking of bad media coverage, there's an absurd article about same-sex relationships, same-sex behavior in animals, according to the New York Times, and it just shows you how science is becoming secondary to politics.
	There's an article in the New York Times called Seeking a New Lens to Study Same-Sex Behavior in Animals.
	A team of researchers say that science has relied on a human heterosexual baseline and made faulty assumptions about sexual activity in the animal kingdom.
	How so?
	Well, it turns out that homosexual activity is not supremely uncommon in the animal kingdom.
	Which, so what?
	I mean, really, so what?
	But, the question that has been asked by a variety of researchers, of all political stripes, has been, okay, so why does homosexual behavior continue to occur in the animal kingdom, considering that it is not, on its face, evolutionarily beneficial?
	Homosexual activity does not produce offspring, obviously.
	And so if you're talking about the value of evolutionary biology and carrying on genetic lineage, then why would you engage in, why would there be a continuation of same-sex behavior in animals when this obviously does not forward the genetic profile of the animals at issue?
	And so there have been a bunch of theories, the idea that this creates some sort of bonding between animals, or the idea that this is some sort of This is some sort of altruistic, that animals that are oriented this way provide some sort of altruistic service to other young offspring in the community, right?
	There have been a bunch of biological theories about this, but the New York Times is angry at all of those biological theories.
	Why?
	Because they say it is heterosexist.
	The origins of such same sexual behavior have long puzzled evolutionary biologists.
	How could this behavior evolve and persist in so many lineages, even when it doesn't directly aid reproduction, says the New York Times.
	That very question may be the wrong one to ask.
	A group of researchers argue in a study published last week in Nature, Ecology, and Evolution, seeking to flip the underlying assumptions of a whole wing of biology.
	Ambika Kamath, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-author on the study says, Instead, the researchers suggest that same-sex behavior is bound up in the very origins of animal sex.
	It hasn't had to continually re-evolve.
	of heterosexual sex.
	And what we're saying is that the baseline isn't necessarily the right baseline.
	Instead, the researchers suggest that same-sex behavior is bound up in the very origins of animal sex.
	It hasn't had to continually re-evolve.
	It's always been there.
	But that doesn't answer why it has remained, right?
	Because if there is behavior that is evolutionarily non-sustainable, then why exactly would it remain?
	This has been the mystery that has puzzled evolutionary biologists, but the fact that people even ask the question is apparently cis-normative.
	According to the New York Times, evolutionary biologists have long pondered same-sex behavior, often describing it as a Darwinian paradox.
	Paul Vasey, an expert on non-conceptive sexuality at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, who didn't participate in the study, says one school of thought held that such behaviors weren't primarily sexual, instead relating to dominance or grooming.
	Other researchers have suggested it persists in some species because it helps social animals maintain communities, according to Max Lambert, a biologist at Berkeley.
	Still others suggested that examples of same-sex behavior were practiced for reproductive sex or even cases of mistaken identity.
	Most agreed it had to have some sort of evolutionary benefit to make up for the presumed cost of non-reproductive sexual behavior.
	But this study says no.
	One of the authors, Julia Monk, a PhD candidate at Yale and the study's lead author, says the idea that same-sex sexual behavior had to be justified at all seemed like a perspective of dominant cultural norms rather than a more holistic view of the actual biology.
	I really disagreed with some of the ways I saw that discussion framed.
	So, what exactly are these researchers looking for?
	They are looking to bring into the conversation gender theorists.
	Not kidding.
	At issue with past research in the field, Dr. Lambert says, is that unexamined cultural projections, largely by the white heterosexual men who have dominated the field, resulted in many researchers failing to accurately document what they were seeing.
	Ah, you see, there's too many white heterosexual male scientists, and that's why they ask the question, why sexual behavior that obviously and explicitly cannot lead to reproduction continues to maintain in the animal kingdom.
	So the question itself is a reflection of the patriarchy, not a reflection of an actual biological mystery.
	Ms.
	Monk and her colleagues say that explicitly flipping the cultural assumptions, in this case by conducting the study with researchers who self-identify as queer and bringing in outside disciplines like social science, can yield better research.
	Ah, see that'll change the... We have to change the science by bringing in scientists who are gay.
	Because they will have a vested stake in the notion that the underlying patterns of sexual behavior are homosexual in origin, and therefore, that will change the entire script.
	Of course, none of this actually answers the question, but they are saying that the question is irrelevant, but it's only being asked because people are heterosexual, which again, does not explain the Darwinian evolution of homosexual behavior in animals and its continued maintenance.
	But again, to even ask that question is apparently heterosexist.
	The whole thing is, it's just absurd.
	Speaking of scientific absurdity, There's a piece today, again, from the Washington Post, talking about the fact that Americans are continuing to die young at rather alarming rates.
	America's life expectancy dropped for the third consecutive year, according to the Washington Post.
	Death rates from suicide, drug overdoses, liver disease, and dozens of other causes have been rising over the past decade for young and middle-aged adults, driving down overall life expectancy in the United States for three consecutive years, according to a strikingly bleak study published Tuesday that looked at the past six decades of mortality data.
	The report, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, which is a pretty prestigious journal, was immediately hailed by outside researchers for its comprehensive treatment of a still enigmatic trend, the reversal of historical patterns in longevity.
	Despite spending more on healthcare than any other country, the U.S.
	has seen increasing mortality and falling life expectancy for people aged 25 to 64 who should be in the prime of their lives, which has nothing to do with the healthcare system and everything to do with suicide, opioid epidemic, and obesity.
	And the single greatest factor in this particular study is obesity.
	And it is buried way down in the article.
	Way down in the article.
	According to one of the analysts who is looking at the study, Stephen Wolf, who is Director Emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University, He says, some of it may be due to obesity.
	Some of it may be due to drug addiction.
	Some of it may be due to distracted driving from cell phones.
	Given the breadth and pervasiveness of the trend, it suggests that the cause has to be systemic, that there's some root cause that's causing adverse health across many different dimensions for working age adults.
	Now, listen, I wrote an entire book suggesting that the rise in the opioid epidemic and the increase in suicide is at least partially due to a lack of meaning that Americans are feeling each and every day.
	But beyond that, the most obvious medical Explanation for all of this, beyond drug overdose, is obesity.
	Obesity has been rampant.
	According to the Washington Post, burying this all the way down in the middle of the story, I mean like paragraph 15, obesity is a significant part of the story.
	The average woman in the United States today weighs as much as the average man did half a century ago.
	Whoa.
	Men now weigh about 30 pounds more than that.
	Most people in the United States are overweight, an estimated 71.6% of the population age 20 and older, according to the CDC.
	That figure includes 39.8% who are obese.
	4 in 10 Americans over age 20 are obese, which means having a body mass index of 30 or higher in adults.
	Obesity is also rising in children.
	Nearly 19% of the population age 2 to 19 is obese.
	Jay Olshansky, professor of public health at the University of Illinois in Chicago, says these kids are acquiring obesity in their early teen years, sometimes under the age of 10.
	When they get into their 20s, 30s, and 40s, they are carrying the risk factors of obesity that were acquired when they were children.
	We didn't see that in previous generations.
	He says this isn't a one-time phenomenon.
	It's going to echo through time.
	In other words, people are eating too much.
	The reason I bring this up is because this is buried all the way down there in the article.
	Past factors like drugs or the healthcare system.
	If we eat ourselves to death and die at age 50, that's going to really skew the life expectancy statistics in the United States.
	And these are the same members of the media who, in the style section, will be pushing the idea that you can be healthy at any weight, which is obviously untrue.
	Obviously untrue.
	This has been one of the big pushes in social media, is you are beautiful no matter what weight you are.
	Well, beautiful is an aesthetic judgment, right?
	It's subjective and aesthetic to a certain extent.
	I think beyond a certain extent, it is not.
	I think there is such a thing as objective beauty in the sense that pretty much everybody agrees what is beautiful and what is not.
	Beauty is, to a certain extent, in the eye of the beholder.
	What is not in the eye of the beholder is your health status.
	And the idea that you are healthy at any weight is simply untrue.
	There is not a single serious medical professional in the United States who will suggest that you are healthy at any weight.
	And the media's prevailing sentiment that you are healthy at any weight is, again, anti-scientific.
	The anti-scientific tilt of the media, and increasingly of scientists themselves, is an extraordinarily dangerous phenomenon in the United States.
	It is going to lead to severe consequences.
	It's going to lead to people leading less healthy lives.
	It's going to lead to the skewing of science in crucial areas of American life.
	And then we are told, of course, that if we question the anti-scientific consensus, then we are anti-science in some way.
	Political correctness should never trump the ability of people to live healthy lives, and what we are seeing right now is exactly that.
	Okay, time for a couple of quick things that I like and then a couple of quick things that I hate.
	So first of all, things I like.
	Thanksgiving is coming up.
	I love Thanksgiving.
	Thanksgiving is phenomenal.
	So first, I just want to give thanks to you, the listener.
	You guys make it all possible.
	I really appreciate you engaging with our content every single day.
	It is awesome to be able to speak to you and to have this conversation with you on an ongoing basis.
	I want to say thanks to our staff.
	Our staff is Aside from the ones who get fired during every ZipRecruiter ad, our staff are just phenomenal.
	They do an amazing job each and every day dealing with my ridiculousness and vicissitudes and arriving late for each and every broadcast.
	They do a great job here at The Daily Wire.
	I want to thank the administrators here at The Daily Wire.
	They do a great job of ensuring that we have great staff and making sure that all of the trains run on time.
	I obviously want to thank my family.
	I'm thankful for my family.
	Which provides the support basis and also the duty that makes me a better person.
	I want to thank specifically obviously my wife and my kids who are wonderful in every way.
	I know it sounds like an Oscar speech, but since it's Thanksgiving coming up, sounds like a good time to say what I'm thankful for.
	And I am thankful for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the greatest documents ever written by man.
	These documents enshrine basic notions.
	of human individual rights and liberty, the value of each individual human being, those eternal principles spelled out in those documents, not fulfilled at the founding, but gradually broadened to encompass everyone they should encompass over time.
	That is the legacy of the United States.
	I could not be more grateful to live in this phenomenal, phenomenal country.
	Okay, one other thing that I like.
	So, a guy named Scott Alexander, he's a magician, and I have to say, I'm a big fan of close-up magic, so I love sleight of hand.
	I just think that it is spectacular.
	I think that it is, it's an incredible skill set.
	I mean, it's not like, you know, big magic tricks don't do it for me, like the David Copperfield, because once you know how the trick is done, you could do the trick, I could do the trick.
	But the guys who do sleight of hand, these are people who practice hours a day to develop an actual craft, and it really is very cool.
	Well, Scott Alexander, magician, he, it turns out, is a big fan of the show, and has our Leftist Tears Tumblr, and sent me a tape of himself performing a magic trick about impeachment using our Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	This is why you should subscribe, so you can actually see this thing, because it ain't gonna sound as good as it looks.
	Here is Scott Alexander performing some magic with the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Now, the left is hoping that they're going to end up with a great, big, juicy impeachment in the House.
	Yeah, that's a peach.
	But that could be just an illusion.
	What's more likely is that they'll end up with a lemon in the Senate.
	Now, I don't know which is going to happen, but the thing that I don't understand is mainly how this vessel itself, this magical vessel, was able to be used in this little demonstration of sleight of hand, when it has the power to constantly be full of tears.
	Check that out, that's cool stuff.
	Okay, so, as a big Magic fan, thanks Scott, really appreciate it.
	And, you should go check out his work, you can see a lot of his work on YouTube.
	Scott Alexander, that's some pretty cool stuff.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	So, Colin Kaepernick, he posted a video complaining about his fate because he did this ridiculous workout, right?
	So the NFL specifically set up a workout for him so that he could work out for all of the teams.
	And he ditched the workout, said he didn't want to do the workout, and he did his own workout.
	Apparently, it wasn't that great.
	And then he talked about what a hero he was.
	He then released a video online talking about his fate, and it was a defiant message to the NFL, which he says is banning him, which of course is not true.
	Nobody wants him because, one, he is We're waiting for the 32 owners, the 32 teams, Roger Goodell, all of them to stop running.
	Stop running from the truth, stop running from the people.
	We'll let you know if we hear from them.
	terrible his life is because the NFL has victimized him while he earns a million bucks for kneeling for the national anthem, which is about as ungrateful as it gets on Thanksgiving.
	We're waiting for the 32 owners, the 32 teams, Roger Goodell, all of them to stop running.
	Stop running from the truth.
	Stop running from the people.
	We'll let you know if we hear from them.
	Ball's in their court.
	We're ready to go.
	Okay, so he posted this clipped up video of himself talking about this with some cool music and some pictures and self-signing autographs.
	Okay, well, I will say one thing I'm grateful for.
	This is hilarious.
	So Colin Kaepernick didn't get any interest.
	None.
	But Jordan Veazey was one of his wide receivers from the workout and has now earned an opportunity to try out with the Cleveland Browns according to Heavy.com.
	According to Howard Balzer, Veazey was among the six players the Browns worked out on Monday.
	He played college football at California.
	He has not yet found a long-term NFL home.
	He's been on the practice squads for the Titans, Jags, Colts, and most recently the Buffalo Bills.
	He was released in October from Buffalo.
	Unlikely that anything comes from the tryout, but pretty hilarious that dude showed up for Colin Kaepernick's tryout, and Colin Kaepernick didn't get a tryout with any of the teams, but one of his receivers did.
	That is pretty hysterical, and I kind of love it.
	Okay, final thing that I hate.
	Okay, so it's Thanksgiving season.
	That means you're gonna have to talk with your annoying uncle or aunt.
	How about this?
	How about just have like a nice conversation, and if it's not going well, just don't talk politics.
	I'm constantly amazed at the number of articles that come out.
	How to talk to your crazy right-wing uncle.
	Hey, how about you just don't talk politics at the table if you can't handle it?
	Like, really, if you can't handle it.
	My favorite is that the National Network of Abortion Funds put out a tweet talking about how you should bring your abortion toolkit to dinner.
	What, in case you can't carve the turkey and you run out of scalpels?
	You need the abortion toolkit at dinner?
	If you're talking abortion at Thanksgiving, you're doing Thanksgiving wrong, guys.
	Just suffice it to say, I think that that is obviously the case.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours.
	Otherwise, we will see you after Thanksgiving.
	Make sure, by the way, that if you're going to subscribe, you do it on Friday, Black Friday.
	We've got an amazing deal for you, so tune in then.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkiewicz.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.
	Supervising Producers Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Technical Producer Austin Stevens.
	Associate Producer Colton Haas.
	Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Sijewicz.
	Audio is Mixed by Mike Karmina.
	Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production Assistant Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
	But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

▲