Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 29, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:05:48

Twitter’s Repulsive Censorship | Ep. 1126

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The heads of the big tech companies get grilled by Republicans, the author of an anonymous article from a high-ranking Trump official finally comes out, and violence continues in Philadelphia.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com.
	Well, we are five days away from the national election.
	Five days away, we'll get to everything news related in just one second.
	First, as you know, being five days away, well, that means that we are in the midst of a contentious time.
	And that means a lot of chaos is in the offing.
	You know what chaos means?
	It means chaos for your investments.
	It's one of the reasons you should be diversified.
	I mean, what happens if Biden wins?
	What if the outcome is uncertain for weeks, which could happen?
	What happens if Wall Street goes haywire?
	Well, that means that you should, again, diversify.
	You should put at least a little bit of your money into precious metals.
	So what are you doing pre-election to shore up those investments?
	Diversifying to gold with Birch Gold, just like I've been telling you to do for years.
	Wouldn't it be nice to have a layer of security whichever way the wind blows?
	Text BEN to 474747 to get started.
	One of the great people at Birchgold will walk you through your conversion of your eligible IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA where the physical metal, not ETFs, will be stored securely.
	Birchgold.
	They're my folks.
	They have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	Countless five-star reviews.
	Talk to them.
	They are extremely knowledgeable.
	They can help you preserve your savings.
	I trust my team over at Birchgold.
	Call them.
	Ask all your questions.
	Get all the information.
	Become an informed consumer of precious metals.
	And then, if you're interested, talk with my friends at Birchgold about investing in precious metals and diversifying at least a little bit.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	Open a precious metals IRA today.
	Again, text Ben to 474747.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	IRA today again text Ben to 474747 text Ben to 474747. Okay so when you look at the Real Clear Politics polling average what you see is that everything seems relatively stable.
	I mean, there are kind of minor moves in each direction, but overall, things are relatively stable.
	Biden has been somewhere between 10 and 7 points in the lead, really for probably 6 months, 7 months at this point.
	In the battlegrounds, you're starting to see a little bit of tightening.
	In Pennsylvania, Biden is up to about a 3.5% RealClearPolitics poll average lead in Pennsylvania.
	Pennsylvania is the key state, by the way.
	Assuming that Trump wins the states that he needs to win in the South, meaning he wins Florida, he wins Georgia, he wins North Carolina.
	Let's say that he wins Arizona.
	OK, let's say that he does all of that.
	He needs Pennsylvania, right?
	That is the state that he requires in order to win.
	Right now, it's about a four point race in Pennsylvania.
	It seems like there's momentum for Trump in Pennsylvania.
	Seems like there's momentum for Trump in Florida as well.
	I've been predicting for a while.
	I think that Trump is going to win Florida.
	In Georgia, there's new polling that suggests that Joe Biden is super competitive in Georgia.
	North Carolina is within margin of error.
	The margin in Arizona seems to have dropped just a little bit in Trump's favor.
	The latest polls in Arizona put Biden up somewhere between two points and Susquehanna has Trump up one point in the last week.
	So all of these battleground states are extremely, extremely close.
	And it'll be fascinating to watch on election night because after all, not all of these states are going to count ballots in the same way.
	If you have a really, really high count of absentee ballots or mail-in ballots, for example, Well, it takes a long time to count those.
	If you have a close race and the mail-in ballots are still coming in, we may not know for weeks what exactly happened in Arizona.
	We may not know for months what happened in Pennsylvania.
	In fact, The Supreme Court allowed longer deadlines for absentee ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, according to the New York Times on Tuesday.
	So, Republicans in both states opposed the extensions because they were saying, OK, we should not allow ballots that are coming in a week after the election to be counted because, I mean, what about when they were postmarked?
	What if somebody claims it was postmarked the day after the election, but they actually voted before the election?
	All this gets litigated.
	Why not just solve that problem now, that problem of uncertainty?
	Well, according to the New York Times, in a pair of decisions welcomed by Democrats, the Supreme Court on Wednesday let election officials in two key battleground states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, accept absentee ballots for several days after Election Day.
	In the Pennsylvania case, the court refused a plea from Republicans in the state that it decides, before Election Day, whether election officials can continue receiving absentee ballots for three days after November 3rd.
	In the North Carolina case, the court let stand lower court rulings that allowed the state's Board of Elections to extend the deadline to nine days after Election Day.
	Up from the three days originally called for by the state legislature.
	The court's brief orders in the two cases were unsigned.
	Judge Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in either case.
	A court spokeswoman said Barrett did not participate because of the need for a prompt resolution and because she had not had time to fully review the party's filings.
	Now, this does not mean that there won't be litigation after the election.
	If these states are very close and the counts continue, and there's an early count and then the counts continue, well then it can be re-litigated at the Supreme Court level.
	There were no noted dissents in the Pennsylvania case, though three justices said the court might return to it after Election Day.
	In the North Carolina case, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Gorsuch said they would have granted requests from Republican lawmakers to block lower courts, allowing the longer deadline.
	Well, that makes sense because in the Pennsylvania case, it was done statutorily.
	In the North Carolina case, it was done by a lower court.
	The two cases involved broadly similar issues, but in Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature.
	In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.
	In Pennsylvania, at least, they say that they may come back to that case after the election, which, of course, is exactly the wrong thing.
	Chief Justice Roberts, who's just a disaster area.
	Chief Justice Roberts, in seeking to uphold the legitimacy of the court by staying out of these questions, is actually making it worse.
	Because now, let's say the thing is really close, you're going to end up with Bush v. Gore.
	This thing ends up in the Supreme Court again, which is a disaster.
	This is 2020, which means the Pandora's box could open, right?
	The mummy's tomb could be unsealed and all members of all sort of manifestations of horrific outcome could be possible here for the country.
	My favorite, personal, is that there's a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College.
	This is my personal nightmare scenario.
	269-269 tie in the Electoral College.
	By the way, this could very easily happen.
	This is the case if Donald Trump holds all the states that he held last time except for Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona.
	So he wins Pennsylvania and all the other states he won last time.
	Plus he wins the Maine 2nd District and the Nebraska 2nd District.
	If he does that, you now have a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College.
	So people have been asking, what happens if that happens?
	Well, then it goes to the House of Representatives.
	But the House does not vote With all of its members.
	Instead, they vote by state.
	So state delegation decides how to vote for the president.
	Right now, Republicans hold a 26-23 advantage in state delegations.
	I think there's one that's split, the state delegation split right down the middle.
	If Democrats were to pick up two of those three and Republicans hold one, then what you end up with is a 25-25 split in the House of Representatives with regard to who gets elected president.
	Right, so then what happens?
	Well, then they just keep voting, right?
	Then you keep voting until somebody's elected president.
	Meanwhile, the Senate gets to decide who the vice president is.
	Well, there's only one problem.
	The Senate could easily be split 50-50.
	This is my favorite, not going to happen, but it's insane.
	Election scenario.
	Biden, obviously, is a little bit worried about some of the states that he's supposed to be winning walking away.
	According to Mediaite, Biden has been heading to Florida.
	His campaign is afraid the Democratic turnout is lagging because a lot of the early voting is trending Republican, and Republicans are expected to outpace Democrats on Election Day.
	So Biden is heading to Florida.
	In other words, this election is not over yet.
	And while the statistics from FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics show that Trump is the heavy underdog, this remains a very, very close election.
	And it remains a close election for a couple of reasons.
	One is because the media have absolutely 100% refused to cover anything Joe Biden related.
	And that is just true.
	That is just a simple fact.
	It is because the intervention of the media and the social media companies and corporations in this election has been absolutely overwhelming.
	I mean, it's been like nothing I've ever seen in American politics.
	Truly, it's a crazy, crazy thing.
	President Trump yesterday, he said, listen, you know, if there's a story about me being corrupted everywhere in the media, if there's a story about Joe Biden being corrupted is nowhere in the media.
	He's absolutely right about this.
	Here's President Trump campaigning yesterday.
	Tremendous corruption on behalf of the Biden.
	Tremendous.
	Do you know you can't find it anywhere in the media other than the New York Post, which I'm very proud of?
	And they endorsed me the other day, too, by the way.
	But you can't find it anywhere in the media.
	Sleepy Joe Biden with all the corruption, all the theft, all the money they took out of these countries that we end up paying for in spades.
	You can't find it on Big Tech and you can't find it at the Washington Post and New York Times because they're crooked, they're dishonest, and we caught them.
	OK, and then Trump points out he's not just running against Biden, he's running against the mob and he's running against the media.
	And again, there's a lot of truth to this.
	The institutional obstacles to Trump are extremely high.
	The media have treated Trump with absolute disdain from the time he declared for the presidency.
	And then once he was president, they decided that they were just going to cover him in the most horrible possible way.
	Sometimes critical media coverage of Trump is justified.
	I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I think that every time the media criticizes Trump it's unjustified.
	I don't think that's right.
	I've been very much opposed to Trump suggesting that bad stories about him are by definition fake news.
	I don't think that's correct either.
	It is also true the overwhelming majority of media coverage has been anti-Trump, and that extends to stories that are overt positives for the United States.
	When the economy is good, the story is framed as, well, the economy would be better if a Democrat were president.
	I'm not just running against Joe Biden, I'm running against the left-wing mob and the left-wing media, the big tech giants, and I'm also running against the rhinos.
	or some such.
	OK, here is Trump yesterday saying he's not just running against Biden, he's running against the mob and the media.
	And this, of course, is true.
	I'm not just running against Joe Biden.
	I'm running against the left wing mob and the left wing media, the big tech giants.
	And I'm also running against the rhinos.
	You know what a rhino is?
	A rhino may be the lowest form of human life.
	OK, so he's going after, you know, the Lincoln Project characters there, which, of course, President Trump has his list of enemies and he's going to go down them.
	But when he says that he is facing overwhelming institutional obstacles.
	He's not wrong about that.
	One of those overwhelming institutional obstacles that has utterly come out of the closet in this election cycle is social media.
	So social media has basically decided to suppress stories that they think are going to benefit Trump.
	And this is all about 2016.
	If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, social media would be happily in favor of the First Amendment.
	They'd be happily in favor of allowing all sorts of variant material on social media.
	But Hillary Clinton lost in 2016.
	And so the Democrats decided they had to blame somebody who was not Hillary Clinton.
	First, they blamed the Russians.
	Then, they blamed the social media companies for allowing the Russians to skew the election.
	They suggested that Facebook was responsible for Hillary Clinton losing because, of course, Facebook allowed people to put up dissenting opinions about Hillary Clinton.
	Because Facebook had not shut down Russian interference.
	Now, let's be real about this.
	Russian interference on Facebook did not lose the election for Hillary Clinton.
	Hillary Clinton lost the election for Hillary Clinton.
	She was a terrible candidate.
	And then James Comey, in the last week of the election, dropped a bombshell suggesting a new laptop had been found with her hidden emails.
	And so it turns out that lost the election for Hillary, not a bunch of Russian scam artists putting up very poor, by the way, poorly trafficked memes on Facebook.
	It doesn't matter.
	The social media giants were brought to heel by the Democratic Party.
	They were told it is your fault if Donald Trump wins re-election.
	And thus, in the lead up to the election, you must prevent Donald Trump from winning by any means necessary.
	And that means playing up all bad Trump news and playing down any bad news for Joe Biden, up to and including suppressing actual full on stories from the New York Post.
	We'll talk about that in just a second because the big tech heads were called before Congress yesterday.
	It didn't go well for them, particularly for Jack Dorsey over at Twitter.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	And first, let us talk about the fact, global pandemics, civil unrest, politicians infringing on your inalienable right to defend yourself. Now more than ever, emotions are running high in our country. You see it on the news, peaceful protests supposedly turning violent, riots in the streets, law enforcement not staffed to handle all emergencies. More and more Americans are purchasing guns and making the choice to protect themselves and their families. And they absolutely should. If you're one of the people who's purchased a gun recently, the big question is, are you prepared?
	You need proper education.
	It's not enough just to own a gun.
	You need to know how to use it.
	You need to have industry-leading training to ensure your skills are sharp, and you need the nation's best legal protection should you, God forbid, find yourself in a circumstance in which you've had to fire your gun in self-defense.
	You need the USCCA.
	Get started today.
	Text GUN to 87222.
	You'll receive the complete concealed carry and family defense guide for free.
	In this guide, you will learn how to detect attackers before they see you, how to survive the mass shooting, seven firearms drills that could save your life, and much, much more.
	It's 164 pages.
	It comes with a bonus audio version so you can listen whenever you want.
	In addition, if you text right now, you'll be entered to win $1,000 to put toward a gun of your choice that you can use to protect your family today.
	Text GUN to 87222 right now.
	USCC is a wonderful organization.
	You should get involved.
	Text GUN to 87222.
	GUN to 87222 to get started.
	Okay, so.
	The social media companies, most obviously.
	I mean, there have been a lot of people on the right who have been complaining for a while that social media companies are utterly non-transparent.
	That many of the social media companies seem to downgrade information they simply do not like.
	That all broke out into the open over the last two and a half weeks after the New York Post ran the Hunter Biden emails.
	After the New York Post ran the Hunter Biden email story, suggesting that Hunter Biden's emails made reference to Joe Biden receiving money or interest held in escrow for him in case of a deal with a Chinese company after his vice presidency.
	When that story originally broke in the New York Post, it was immediately banned on Twitter, like outright banned.
	You could not tweet the link.
	The New York Post account was shut down on Twitter, on Facebook.
	The head of content over there, Andy Stone, put out a tweet saying that the story had been suppressed on Facebook pending a fact check, even though there was no information to suggest that the story was false or that it was Russian disinformation.
	It was the most obvious example of election interference by the big tech companies I've ever seen.
	I mean, it's unprecedented.
	Absolutely unprecedented.
	So, yesterday, the big tech heads were called before Congress.
	Now, let's be real about this.
	There has been a push from the left to curb big tech for a while.
	I've been very much opposed to that push.
	The reason is that the left would like to curb big tech by preventing them from posting material.
	What they would like is a reinstitution of the old fairness doctrine.
	The idea being that you have bosses at the federal government who tell you what kind of content you can and cannot post.
	And so I've been very much opposed to the government getting into the regulatory business with regard to big tech.
	On the right, there have been complaints that these big tech companies are being unfair and that they are not being transparent in their standards.
	There's particularly an objection to the Section 230 language.
	Section 230 suggests that platforms are not responsible for the content that is posted on those platforms and that they are allowed to content curate and content moderate in order to prevent the posting of pornographic, violent, Harassing or, and this is the phrase that matters, otherwise objectionable material.
	That catch-all phrase has been used by the companies to basically say, we can take down anything we don't like.
	And this has led some people to say, okay, well, now you have basically violated the compact with the American people.
	You said that we could post whatever we wanted, so long as it wasn't violent or harassment or incitement to violence, but otherwise objectionable is too broad.
	If you're just taking down my story because you don't like my story, Now you're essentially doing the same job that the New York Times would do, right?
	You're censoring content on the basis of political persuasion.
	And that really is not what Section 230 was written for.
	Section 230 was written in order not to disadvantage companies that wanted to take down violent or obscene material.
	It was not written in order to provide advantage for publishers masquerading as platforms.
	Right, that was the basic idea behind Section 230.
	So right now there's a push in the United States Senate to make clear the otherwise objectionable standard, the otherwise objectionable standard in Section 230.
	So that's been the push from the right.
	So all of this comes to a head yesterday in this hearing with Big Tech.
	Now normally, hearings with Big Tech, they go very poorly for the Congress people.
	And the reason they go poorly for the congresspeople is because congresspeople tend to be, on average, about 55 to 60 years old, which means that they have to call their grandchildren in order to actually install AOL on their computer, because they still have a dial-up modem.
	The fact is that, unfortunately, our congresspeople are not particularly in touch when it comes to technology, and so the questions they ask are very often quite silly.
	However, the questions yesterday were very easy to answer.
	And they were, why are you downgrading particular political content?
	What is the excuse for downgrading, for example, that New York Post story?
	There is no plausible explanation other than a political drive to censor material from the left.
	Okay, so Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook was asked about this.
	He was asked specifically, you know, this originally was put on, the article was basically, it was, essentially reduced in its reach because you were suggesting that maybe it was fact-checked false or it would be fact-checked or it was Russian disinformation or something like that.
	So they asked Zuckerberg, like, do you have any evidence whatsoever that this thing was Russian disinformation or that actually there was that there was anything false in the story? And Zuckerberg was like, no, we don't have any of that information. Is that also your answer, Mr. Zuckerberg, that you have no information at all to indicate that that Russia was the source of this New York Post article? Senator, I would rely on the FBI to make that assessment.
	But you don't have any such information, do you?
	I do not myself.
	Okay, so there is no information to suggest that this story was false or Russian disinformation.
	It was downgraded by Facebook anyway.
	Okay, so Zuckerberg took a few licks, but the person who really took some hits yesterday was Jack Dorsey, which makes sense.
	At least Zuckerberg has paid lip service to the idea of the First Amendment mattering.
	At least he has a tendency to gravitate toward more free speech rather than less free speech.
	That doesn't mean I agree with all Zuckerberg's policies on Facebook.
	I mean, right now, Daily Wire is being dramatically downgraded in traffic For some unknown reason by Facebook in the lead up to the election.
	This I do not find particularly surprising.
	It's been happening for weeks on end and we never get any transparency from Facebook.
	OK, but when it comes to Twitter, OK, Twitter is perfectly obvious in its political bias, like perfectly and clearly obvious in its political bias.
	So in a second, we're going to get to the testimony of Jack Dorsey.
	First, it's time to replace your bad employees.
	I know, you know, it's a really interesting employment market right now.
	People are looking for jobs.
	Putin is alive and running Twitter.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, it's time to replace your bad employees.
	I know, you know, it's a really interesting employment market right now.
	People are looking for jobs.
	And that means that if you're an employer, it's time to upgrade your employees.
	So let's say that you have a really, really good-hearted employee.
	Somebody like Rebecca.
	Rebecca's just a good-hearted person.
	Rebecca is also the type of person who, you know, goes to parties in South Beach and is surprised to find herself in a situation where somebody's been murdered at a similar party at the same house, like, just a few months back.
	All of that's very good.
	But it could put Rebecca in peculiar situations that require you to replace Rebecca.
	And this is why you would need ZipRecruiter.com.
	ZipRecruiter does all the work for you.
	Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com.
	When you post a job on ZipRecruiter, it gets sent out to over 100 job sites with just one click.
	Then, ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology finds people with the right skills and experience for your job and actively invites them to apply, so you get qualified candidates fast.
	It's no wonder four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	They're doing a fantastic job connecting prospective employers to prospective employees.
	Go check them out right now for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Straight from the set of Duck Dynasty.
	I was testifying before Congress and made perfectly clear what social media's agenda is.
	And the thing is, when you exist in a bubble like Jack Dorsey is, like in a cave in Malaysia being bitten by mosquitoes and smoking dope, and all your liberal friends are telling you you're doing some good for the world by suppressing content, then you literally do not understand why people would be so upset at you.
	Jack Dorsey did not understand why people were so upset at him.
	This, by the way, is the same guy who was so apolitical he hired DeRay McKesson at one point.
	The racial commentator, shall we say.
	DeRay McKesson as one of the chief voices to decide what kind of content was appropriate for Twitter.
	So Jack Dorsey acknowledged the problem at Twitter is that Republicans don't trust us.
	Yes, you think?
	I can't imagine why Republicans don't trust you when you literally barred the New York Post from posting for three weeks because they put up a story that was true.
	Here is Jack Dorsey, apparently straight from Treasure Island.
	Ben Gunn here.
	Section 230 gave Internet services two important tools.
	The first provides immunity from liability for users' content.
	The second Provides good Samaritan protections for content moderation and removal, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it's done in good faith.
	That concept of good faith is what's being challenged by many of you today.
	Some of you don't trust we're acting in good faith.
	That's the problem I want to focus on solving.
	How do services like Twitter earn your trust?
	Well, let's see.
	How do they earn our trust?
	How about this?
	How about complete transparency?
	How about you know why you ban material?
	How about you don't downgrade material and then keep downgrading the material and keep banning the outlet because you don't like the political content?
	Dorsey himself acknowledged there is no evidence that the New York Post story was disinformation.
	None.
	Senator Ron Johnson asked him directly about it.
	Do any of you have any information whatsoever that they're not authentic or that they are Russian disinformation?
	Mr. Dorsey?
	We don't.
	You know, so why would you censor it?
	Why did you prevent that from being disseminated on your platform that is supposed to be for the free expression of ideas, and particularly true ideas?
	We believe to fill a foul of our hacking materials policy.
	Okay, so it's not their hacked materials policy.
	Because it was then followed up upon.
	And it was like, so hold up.
	You're saying it's the hacked materials policy that this was hacked?
	You covered the Steele dossier, that was no problem.
	You covered Trump's tax returns, that was no problem.
	It's a crime to leak other people's tax returns, you covered that no problem.
	So that's obviously crap.
	My favorite claim by Jack Dorsey.
	Does Twitter have the ability to influence elections?
	is that Twitter does not affect elections.
	No.
	Okay, if they didn't affect elections, then literally they would not have these policies.
	The whole reason that Twitter implemented these policies is because Democrats claimed they affected elections.
	Here's Ted Cruz asking Dorsey about it.
	Does Twitter have the ability to influence elections?
	No.
	You don't believe Twitter has any ability to influence elections?
	No, we are one part of a spectrum of communication challenges people have.
	So you're testifying to this committee right now that Twitter, when it silences people, when it censors people, when it blocks political speech, that has no impact on elections?
	People have choice of other communication channels.
	Okay, that is delicious.
	It is wonderful that now Twitter is claiming they have no ability to affect elections.
	Sure, sure you don't.
	In some cases, algorithms take action.
	In other cases, achievements do.
	to affect elections, and they have no standard practice for what they censor.
	This is something Dorsey also said.
	He said there's literally no standard.
	We just kind of censor what we please.
	Here he was explaining.
	In some cases, algorithms take action.
	In other cases, achievements do.
	In some cases, it's a pairing of the two.
	There are numerous examples of blue checkmarks that are spreading false information that So, Twitter must have some kind of list of priority accounts that it maintains.
	You have the blue checkmark list.
	How do you decide when to flag a tweet?
	You got into that a little bit.
	Is there a formal threshold of retweets or likes that must be met before a tweet is flagged?
	No.
	So they have no actual standards.
	Okay, so basically it's all arbitrary, but why don't you trust us?
	Well, maybe one of the reasons that we don't trust you is because you will ban the New York Post, but then you will suggest that Holocaust denial is not misinformation worthy of banning.
	That's something Jack Dorsey also said.
	So again, here's Jack Dorsey.
	I mean, this guy is in charge of a billion-dollar company.
	Wow.
	America's an amazing country.
	It truly, truly is.
	Straight from Castaway Island, Jack Dorsey.
	Somebody denying the murder of millions of people or instigating violence against a country as a head of state is not categorically falling in any of those three misinformation or other categories Twitter has?
	Not misinformation, but we do have other policies around incitement to violence.
	So somebody denies the Holocaust has happened is not misinformation?
	It's misleading information, but we don't have a policy against that type of misleading information.
	Ah, there's no policy with regard to misleading information with regard to Holocaust denial.
	But if the president of the United States put something up about COVID that Twitter doesn't like, then they put a warning on the information. I can't imagine why people don't trust Twitter.
	Why don't people trust Twitter? My favorite thing here is when Dorsey says that the New York Post is allowed to tweet their story.
	Okay, first of all, it's not true.
	People tried to tweet the original link yesterday.
	It was still banned.
	Second of all, he says what New York Post has to do is they have to delete their original tweet with the story, and then they'll be reinstated, and then they can retweet the same link over again.
	Or you could, you know, not ban them.
	That would be the solution to that.
	Here's the worst member of ZZ Top explaining.
	The New York Post is still blocked from tweeting two weeks later.
	Yes, they have to log into their account, which they can do at this minute.
	Delete the original tweet, which fell under our original enforcement actions, and they can tweet the exact same material from the exact same article and it would go through.
	Okay, so the New York Post is supposed to delete its original true tweet and then retweet the same thing so that Twitter will let them back in.
	It's just Orwellian nonsense.
	Now, the best part about the Orwellian nonsense is all of our media vetters, the same people who declare that Donald Trump is a threat to the free press, a threat to the First Amendment, the press wants this.
	The press wants the big tech bros to shut down all other methods of dissemination of information that are not mainstream media.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about protecting your home.
	There are a thousand reasons that protecting your home matters to you.
	So, I have three young children.
	Three children under the age of seven.
	If you have young children, you know they are little suicide machines.
	All they are attempting to do all day long is do dangerous things and kill themselves.
	It is very important to me that I be able to keep an eye on them no matter where I am.
	And this is what Ring does for me.
	Whatever you call home, Ring has everything you need to protect it.
	You can see and speak to whoever's at your front door from anywhere with video doorbells.
	You can keep an eye on every corner of your house with easy to install indoor and outdoor cams.
	You can protect your whole home with Ring Alarm, A powerful, affordable, whole home security system you can easily install yourself.
	We have Ring devices all over our house.
	It makes me feel safer.
	It makes my wife feel a lot safer.
	Get a special offer on the Ring Welcome Kit at Ring.com slash Ben.
	You're keeping your house safe inside and out.
	It comes with Rings Video Doorbell 3 and Chime Pro.
	It's the perfect way to start that Ring experience.
	Plus, free two-day shipping.
	Go to Ring.com slash Ben.
	Again, that is Ring.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	Ring.com slash Ben.
	When you use that slash Ben, you get a special offer on that Ring Welcome Kit to make your life calmer and more secure.
	Ring.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out.
	Right now.
	OK, so it's not just that social media are downgrading conservatives, are suppressing material that's bad for Joe Biden.
	It's that the media love this.
	The media are happy with it.
	The left, generally, is very, very happy with this.
	There are people like Kevin Roos at the New York Times, and Kara Swisher at the New York Times, and Juglegum, who spend all day just trying to pressure social media into preventing the dissemination of information they don't like.
	These are quote-unquote free speech activists who spend their day trying to suppress free speech and free dissemination.
	That is what they attempt to do.
	It's their goal in life.
	They love it.
	Okay, and this is how you end up with a tweet from Charlie Warzel over at the New York Times who covers information wars.
	He tweeted out yesterday, the New York Post leaving a violating tweet up in order to stay locked out of an account in order to use it as a political cudgel is a classic tactic, but it's usually one you see from individual MAGA influencers.
	Oh, so what you see here is that the New York Post refuses to take down a true story because they want Twitter to actually just reinstate them.
	And that's the fault of the New York Post.
	Incredible journalisming.
	Tremendous, tremendous journalisming there from Charlie Warzell, who covers the information wars for the New York Post.
	The Democratic senators, by the way, should scare the hell out of you.
	So the Republican senators yesterday were angry at the big tech bros for not allowing more speech on their platforms.
	They are concerned at the political discrimination on the platforms.
	And so they would like to see more speech, not less speech on the platforms.
	The left has no such compunction.
	Not one Democrat on this Senate committee questioning big tech.
	Asked for consistent standards on what is banned and what is not banned.
	Instead, they just sought to ban material they don't like.
	Make no mistake about it, when it comes to First Amendment values, not First Amendment as a matter of law, which of course is about government compulsion.
	A First Amendment value system that values free speech, that values free and open debate, the left has no part of it.
	The mainstream Democratic Party is now rejecting it.
	Ed Markey, Senator from Massachusetts, he says the problem isn't that you're taking too many posts down over Twitter.
	The problem is you're leaving too many posts up over Twitter.
	Ed Markey wants to make sure that everything he doesn't like is taken down over at Twitter.
	The big tech business model, which puts profits ahead of people, is a real problem.
	Anti-conservative bias is not a problem.
	The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down.
	The issue is that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up.
	In fact, they're amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and tortures our democracy.
	OK, so yes, the left has no interest in free speech.
	They don't like free speech.
	So here's Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat from Hawaii and full-fledged idiot, trying to suggest that these social media companies require more protection from conservatives.
	Conservatives are trying to force Twitter to allow material about Hunter Biden.
	And that means that they're trying to make all these social media companies into weapons against Joe Biden.
	And that can't be allowed.
	That simply can't be allowed.
	What's happening here is a scar on this committee and the United States Senate.
	What we are seeing today is an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate by making sure that they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence the election.
	Again, I am enjoying the specter of Democrats suggesting that the problem here is conservatives bullying corporations.
	Literally, the entire Democratic Party right now is trying to bully corporations into doing things that they want.
	They're trying to bully corporations into putting up black squares.
	They're trying to bully corporations into hiring Ibram X. Kendi for $20,000 diversity training sessions.
	They're trying to bully corporations into not opening... Chick-fil-A isn't supposed to open in Chicago or Boston or a variety of other Democratic cities because the founder, Dan Cathy, supported traditional marriage.
	I mean, it's amazing.
	But now apparently they're very much in favor of private corporations being able to run businesses as they see fit, unless you're a baker who just doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, in which case you should go to jail or your business should be shut down.
	The hypocrisy of these folks knows no bounds.
	None.
	All of this prompted Ted Cruz to finally go off on the big tech bros, particularly Jack Dorsey, saying, you know, who the hell elected you?
	Like, who made you in charge of What material the American people can and cannot see.
	Literally the exemption that is provided to you is dependent on you not being an editorial oversight board for the American people.
	You can censor the New York Post.
	You can censor Politico.
	Presumably, you can censor the New York Times or any other media outlet.
	Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear?
	And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?
	That is a good question.
	But it's not a question that the big tech guys are ever going to have to answer.
	If the Democrats have their way, the big tech companies will just become an extension of the New York Times.
	The only links you will be allowed to tweet are links from CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and the New York Times.
	Okay, speaking of the New York Times.
	Remember that time that the New York Times printed an article from Anonymous?
	Anonymous was a high-ranking Trump official.
	You recall this?
	It was very, very important.
	We were told it was very important.
	It was an op-ed written September 5th, 2018.
	I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration.
	I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
	And this was described as the writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
	So for years, there's been speculation.
	Who is anonymous?
	Who's anonymous?
	Well, Chris Chaliza put out a piece suggesting that perhaps anonymous was Mike Pence.
	I mean, this wouldn't be like a low-level official because the New York Times wouldn't just print some missive from a low-level Trump official and then call them a senior official in order to get at Trump.
	It would have to presumably be someone very high-level.
	There was speculation Melania Trump did it.
	Or Victoria Coates.
	Or somebody else who had served inside the Trump administration whose name actually might be known.
	Well, now we know exactly who this was.
	Apparently, the person is named Miles Taylor.
	Yes, I know.
	THE Miles Taylor.
	The very famous Miles Taylor.
	Senior Trump official.
	Who you have never heard of in your entire life.
	He was chief of staff to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christian Nielsen, but he was not when he wrote the op-ed.
	By the time he wrote the op-ed, he actually was just like a consultant.
	He was a DHS policy advisor.
	A DHS policy advisor, and they characterized him as a senior Trump official.
	The New York Times.
	These are the people you ought to trust.
	So Taylor has now put out a statement.
	He says, Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously.
	The decision wasn't easy.
	I wrestled with it.
	I understand why some people consider it questionable to levy such serious charges against a sitting president under the cover of anonymity, but my reasoning was straightforward and I stand by it.
	Issuing my critiques without attribution forced the president to answer them directly on their merits, or not at all.
	Rather than creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling, I wanted the attention to be on the arguments themselves.
	No, actually, what had started was a mole hunt inside the Trump administration.
	That was a complete waste of time for everybody involved.
	By the way, Miles Taylor's a damn liar.
	He went on CNN and overtly denied that he was anonymous not all that long ago on air with Anderson Cooper.
	CNN has announced he will retain his slot because lying about this is apparently of no consequence.
	I mean, if you're in the media and you're in the good graces of the media, you're basically unfireable.
	I mean, Jeffrey Toobin could literally pull out his There was an op-ed, there was a book by someone calling themselves anonymous.
	it to New Yorker and the guy was suspended, right? He was not fired. Miles Taylor goes on CNN and lies about him being anonymous and then he reveals on CNN that he is in fact anonymous and they're like, oh, okay, well, all right, no problem. We here at CNN, we know an apple is an apple and a banana is a banana. So here is Anderson Cooper with Miles Taylor, not all that long ago, Miles Taylor denying that he was anonymous. There was an op-ed, there was a book by someone calling themselves anonymous. Are you aware of who that is? I'm not.
	Look, and that was a parlor game that happened in Washington, D.C.
	of a lot of folks trying to think of who that might be.
	I've got my own thoughts about who that might be.
	But, you know, I'm not a president and I certainly don't want to.
	I wear a mask for two things, Anderson, Halloweens and pandemics.
	So, no.
	So, no.
	He is.
	He lied directly to Anderson Cooper and they're just keeping him employed at CNN because he doesn't like Trump.
	It's amazing.
	Don't worry, our media are completely unbiased.
	They're absolutely 100% unbiased, which in a second brings us to the situation in Philadelphia.
	I understand that our media have a vested interest in not covering what's going on in Philadelphia.
	It's happening in a swing state, maybe the most important swing state in this election.
	So they are just going to completely miscover everything that is going on in Philadelphia.
	It's very important that it not be covered, that there are mass riots and looting going on in America's sixth largest city.
	Because that city resides in a state that Trump might win and might reelect him.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that everyone these days is pretty aware that you need to wash your hands.
	What about the third hand that you never wash your phone?
	You bring that phone pretty much everywhere.
	You're using it in the bathroom and you never wash that phone, do you?
	Well, germs They agglomerate on the phone.
	They could get you sick.
	Why not clean your phone with PhoneSoap?
	PhoneSoap is the original patented and clinically proven UVC phone sanitizer.
	They've been making phone sanitizers for the last decade.
	PhoneSoap uses UVC light and their patented and clinically proven technology to kill 99.99% of germs like E. coli, salmonella, and the colon flu virus.
	PhoneSoap can sanitize and charge your phone in as little as five minutes.
	PhoneSoap is the only consumer UV sanitizer with a 360 degree disinfectant chamber that uses two pieces of quartz glass to suspend your phone making sure all sides are disinfected.
	They can also sanitize TV remotes, keys, earbuds, credit cards, other common household objects that need disinfection.
	PhoneSoap makes a lot of different models for everybody.
	The PhoneSoap 3 sanitizes in 10 minutes.
	The PhoneSoap Pro kills 99.99% of bacteria in 5 minutes.
	The HomeSoap is big enough to sanitize tablets, toys, bottles, and more.
	Don't get the knockoff product.
	Get PhoneSoap at PhoneSoap.com.
	Use promo code SHAPIRO to save 20% and you receive free shipping.
	It makes a great gift.
	It also offers a lifetime warranty.
	PhoneSoap offers a lifetime warranty on their bulbs.
	Go to PhoneSoap.com.
	Remember to use the code SHAPIRO, save 20%, and free shipping.
	That is PhoneSoap.com.
	Remember to use the code SHAPIRO to save 20%.
	Okay, we're gonna get to everything Philadelphia-related in just one second.
	But first, let's talk about the fact that the country feels like it's coming apart.
	Because it is.
	Right now we have a conflict of visions.
	There's one side of the country that would like to see the entire country fall apart.
	They don't like founding philosophy.
	They don't like America's culture.
	They do not like America's history.
	They think all of these things are bad.
	I'm not talking about people who are just liberals, people you disagree with on tax rates.
	I'm talking about a hard left that believes that America needs to be torn down to its root.
	These are disintegrationists.
	And they are facing off against people who would like America to remain because they believe that America's philosophy is unprecedentedly good.
	If you want to learn about this, you need to pick up my book, How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	People say, what's the single best book I can get from my high school or college kid so they understand American philosophy and what America is all about and what the threat is?
	This is the book.
	I wrote it for that purpose.
	How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	It's not about the election.
	It's about much more than the election.
	It's about beyond the election.
	It's about the battle of ideology that is going to characterize the country for the next decade minimum.
	How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.
	Go pick it up right now over at Amazon or anywhere else that books are sold.
	Meanwhile, The presidential election is almost here.
	We have an amazing day of programming for you.
	Our live stream starts on Tuesday, November 3rd at 3 p.m.
	Eastern, 12 p.m.
	Pacific, featuring special guests, live interviews, and more.
	Leading up to our evening show, we'll be covering the results with you in real time.
	It should be an exciting evening.
	Even better, join DailyWare right now.
	Get 25% off with code ELECTION so you can watch all of our election coverage live on our Apple TV or Roku app.
	Members get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of The Ben Shapiro Show, exclusive Reader's Pass content available only to Daily Wire members.
	If you're considering an All Access membership, you get to join us on All Access Live every night for online and live stream discussions with our hosts, an amazing online community.
	You also get not one, but two leftist ear stimulators with your membership, as well as early, sometimes exclusive access to new Daily Wire products.
	So, Head on over, watch the election with us at dailywire.com.
	Get 25% off your Daily Wire membership with code election.
	When you sign up today, you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So when President Trump has been saying that he is up against not just Joe Biden, but also up against social media and big tech and the media, he is not lying.
	The latest indicator of a media that does not wish to cover stories it does not wish to cover is what's happening in Philadelphia.
	So you've had massive rioting over the past three nights over the shooting of Walter Wallace.
	Walter Wallace is being portrayed by Democrats as a very nice guy, a very, very nice guy.
	Here's Bernie Sanders's tweet on Walter Wallace.
	So Bernie tweeted out, Walter Wallace would be alive today and our thoughts are with his loved ones.
	The police responsible for murdering him in front of his mother, instead of getting him the medical attention he needed, should be arrested, investigated, and prosecuted by the Justice Department.
	Okay, so Bernie Sanders says this guy was murdered.
	like in cold blood, like they should be prosecuted federally by the Justice Department, says Bernie McSanders.
	Okay, there's only one problem.
	He was holding a knife.
	They told him to put down the knife many times.
	It was then 10 feet of them.
	He kept approaching them.
	They shot him.
	Also, it turns out that Walter Wallace was not the world's nicest man.
	I know that we have this duty every time a black man is killed by the police to portray that black man as the font of all good, innocence and wonder.
	We got this with Jacob Blake, who turns out was an alleged rapist.
	We got this with George Floyd, and it turns out that George Floyd literally held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant woman a few years prior.
	So that does not mean that what happened to George Floyd should have happened to George Floyd.
	It does mean that it does not require you to treat people who are shot by the police or killed by the police or die in police custody.
	As wonderful, wonderful people in order to make your point about police brutality with regard to George Floyd.
	It certainly means in the case of Jacob Blake that.
	You know the Democratic candidates calling up Jacob Blake personally.
	to offer their condolences to him on being shot after he resisted arrest, went for a knife in his car, and had been called to the scene by a woman who alleged rape against him previously.
	It makes for a weird narrative.
	Well, it turns out that Walter Wallace was not world's nicest human being.
	According to 6abc.com, right, local news covering this, Wallace was an aspiring rapper with social media accounts filled with videos.
	That sounds nice, doesn't it?
	Well, oh, well, oh, yeah.
	Guns are a central theme as he rhymes about shooting people, including police.
	But his videos also include songs about social causes and police injustice.
	See, this has always been weird to me.
	If you cut a song about how you're shooting the police, and then you're like, but the police are mean to me!
	I feel like the police might have a reason to be mean with you if you're talking literally about how you want to shoot them and murder them.
	In any case, it's not just about his rap, obviously.
	People rap about a variety of topics.
	Many of them rap fictionally.
	Walter Wallace has a criminal record.
	Court records show Wallace was currently awaiting trial for allegedly threatening to shoot a woman and her house up.
	In 2017, he pled guilty to robbery, assault, and possessing an instrument of crime after kicking down the door of another woman and putting a gun to her head.
	He was sentenced to 11 to 23 months behind bars.
	In 2013, he pled guilty to assault and resisting arrest after punching a police officer in the face.
	So, yeah, that's not great.
	That's not great, Bob.
	Okay, but all of this resulted in massive riots in Philadelphia, And our media covered it in exactly the way you have become accustomed to our media covering riots.
	They decided to downplay it, pretend that it was the looting, was the language of the oppressed.
	When you're that oppressed, like in Philadelphia, where Democrats have been in charge for almost literally ever.
	Well, that means that you're oppressed enough that you gotta steal the TV.
	So, New York Reporter tweeted out.
	New York Times Reporter.
	Reporter tweeted out.
	Why are you even covering this?
	Eric Lipton.
	Watching my Twitter feed since last night.
	Very notable, the intensity of tweets from conservative voices looking to amplify, draw attention to looting in Philadelphia.
	Yes, it happened.
	New York Times covered it as well.
	Just remarkable how conservatives want to elevate it.
	I feel like it's more remarkable how the media want to downplay it.
	Massive riots in which a thousand people loot a Walmart.
	After the justified shooting of a person trying to attack police with a knife, it seems to me like that should be more newsworthy than the top story that the New York Times and everybody else was covering yesterday, which was Trump held a rally in Omaha, and the transportation was not good, and some old people were stuck in the cold.
	That was literally the top story on Twitter all day yesterday.
	All day!
	Right, so there's massive rioting, which is an act of mass criminality in Philadelphia.
	And the local authorities look the other way or cater to it.
	That's not a story.
	It's a story that the transportation plans in Omaha were not very good.
	Huge, huge break.
	Yes.
	Don't worry.
	There is no media bias, Virginia.
	There's no media bias whatsoever.
	Then there's the idiots like Wolf Blitzer.
	My favorite is when Joe Biden talking points just sort of wander their way in via the media.
	So here's Wolf Blitzer saying, I don't understand why the Philadelphia officers didn't just shoot to wound.
	The reason you don't shoot to wound, idiot, is because you're not that good with a gun.
	No one is that good with a gun.
	Nobody is Jack Bauer.
	Other reasons.
	You shoot for center of mass because if you shoot to wound, there's a better shot that you miss and hit an innocent bystander.
	There are many reasons to shoot.
	Other reasons to shoot, not to wound.
	Because sometimes you wound the person and they keep coming after you.
	Let's say they shot this guy in the leg and he is now within three feet of them with a knife because he's approaching them.
	Is that going to work out well?
	I think not.
	But here's Wolf Blitzer being a complete dunderhead because this is what we do in the media now.
	Walter Wallace had a knife as we saw.
	One witness said though he had mental health issues.
	The district attorney said a report this was a medical call was consistent with what they know so far.
	So could these officers have escalated the situation?
	They obviously could have used tasers if they had tasers, but they didn't have tasers.
	But why shoot to kill as opposed to shoot to injure and just prevent anything from going further?
	OK, because you're an idiot, Wolf Blitzer.
	I mean, the answer is because that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
	But again, more important to cover the evils of cops who didn't actually do anything wrong than to cover what's actually happening in the city.
	So the Pennsylvania governor, Tom Wolf, he called the rioting peaceful protests.
	He literally said this.
	OK, so here is Governor Wolf.
	I'm and my staff have been in constant communication since last night with the folks in Philadelphia and the hope is that that doesn't escalate into anything more than the peaceful protests that I think this kind of situation brings out.
	Oh, well, you know, we all have hopes, don't we?
	We all have hopes.
	But those hopes were not justified.
	Also, as it turns out, it turns out the police were told to let the looters loot.
	According to Jazz Shaw, writing over at Hot Air, the mayor of Philadelphia imposed a curfew last night in an attempt to quell the ongoing rioting and looting.
	Shockingly, many of the people who were already in the process of breaking any numbers of laws did not follow the orders and set out to continue the mayhem.
	So why would the looters continue emptying the shelves of all the city stores after they'd been put on notice by the municipal government?
	Perhaps it's because they'd heard that the cops had been ordered not to arrest any looters.
	Yes, you heard that correctly.
	The cops were told to simply disperse the looters and not take them into custody.
	This comes from one of the local Fox News reporters who heard it directly from multiple police sources.
	Steve Keeley reporting.
	Obtained by Fox 29 News.
	Directive from Philly Police Executive Team.
	Extremely frustrated officers, both patrol and commanders, told me overnight they were ordered not to arrest looters, just disperse them.
	Okay, that is incredible.
	That is incredible.
	Hey, as you may recall, Daniel Outlaw, who is the current Philadelphia police chief, took the office of police commissioner on a promise to put an end to the incarceration nation that we all supposedly live in.
	She's been one of the biggest proponents of the Empty the Jails movement in the country.
	In case you weren't aware of her history prior to coming to Philadelphia, she was prior the chief of police in Portland, Oregon.
	So, yes, it turns out that these major cities being left to the predations of local officials who do not care about rioting and looting, or see the rioting and looting as justified response to the systemic evils and racism of America, that is a big story, and it's a big story in its swing state, so naturally the media don't want to cover it.
	And Joe Biden will be asked no tough questions about it.
	So Joe Biden, the basic part that Joe Biden is being asked by the media is, will you condemn rioting and looting?
	Sure, he'll condemn rioting and looting.
	Now, ask him if he'll condemn Antifa.
	No.
	Ask him if he'll condemn Black Lives Matter.
	No.
	Ask him if he'll condemn the end to the incarceration movement that calls for the non-arrest of people who are engaged in rioting and looting.
	No.
	He's never going to ask.
	My favorite is that they just assume this is sufficient.
	Joe Biden announces he's against bad thing.
	Oh, well, big news there.
	I'm sure he's going to be a bulwark against that bad thing happening.
	Here is Joe Biden saying he doesn't like rioting and looting and everybody cheering.
	Yay!
	Simpson style.
	There is no excuse whatsoever for the looting and the violence.
	None whatsoever.
	I think to be able to protest is totally legitimate.
	It's totally reasonable.
	But I think that the looting is just as the victim's father said, do not do this.
	It's not what my son.
	You're not helping.
	You're hurting.
	You're not helping my son.
	He's not the victim.
	He's the alleged victim.
	And that allegation is extraordinarily weak, considering he was carrying a gun and refusing to put carrying a knife and refusing to put it down while approaching police officers.
	It's a bad time for the country.
	I mean, what we're watching right now is a bad time for the country.
	It's not a bad time for the country specifically because of Donald Trump.
	It is a bad time for the country because we have a media that is utterly compliant in a narrative that suggests that America is so systemically racist that we ought not cover actual newsworthy events.
	We have to downplay newsworthy events simply to stop Trump because everybody on the right is just that bad.
	The social pressure not to back anything remotely conservative is extremely heavy.
	Very, very heavy right now.
	It's why there are a lot of people who are doubting the polls.
	We'll see if it materializes or not.
	It may not materialize in support for Trump, but the pressure is there.
	There is going to be a backlash at some point to the social pressure that suggests that if you want to stand up to this stuff in any serious way, you're a bad person.
	Because the social pressure is becoming overwhelming.
	Just a slight example over the last 24 hours.
	The Girl Scouts put up a social media post congratulating Amy Coney Barrett.
	It said, And then they put up a picture of female Supreme Court justices that included all of the various Supreme Court justices who have been female.
	Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan.
	This drove a bunch of Democrats to immediately start yelling at the Girl Scouts.
	Ayanna Pressley, who's a delight.
	She's the Ringo Starr of the squad.
	She tweeted out, Amy Coney Barrett is now the antithesis of justice.
	So what did the Girl Scouts immediately do?
	They took it down and they apologized.
	They took down the tweet and they apologized.
	Because it is very, very important that they apologize for such things.
	They cannot be allowed to say a nice thing about Amy Coney Barrett, such as that she is a female who is on the Supreme Court.
	This is where the social pressure is.
	See, this is why.
	The claim is that Joe Biden is going to restore an era of normalcy.
	That Joe Biden is going to bring things back under control.
	That things are bubbling out of control because of Trump, and Joe Biden is going to put back a sense of normalcy.
	I don't think that's going to happen at all.
	I don't think that's going to happen at all.
	And the reason I don't think that's going to happen at all is because too many liberals have decided to make common cause with the radical left rather than simply assuming that they can win a majority on the basis of their own ideas, on the basis of their own policies.
	See, liberals in America, they have a choice right now.
	The choice is they can stand for open conversation, whether it's big tech, whether it's on social platforms, whether it's in the media.
	They can stand for more information being disseminated, not less information.
	They can stand for having discussions with people on the right, or they can make common cause with the folks on the radical left.
	The folks who are on the right may share with them certain presumptions, the liberals, about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
	The folks on the left share political presumptions about what they want utopia to look like.
	Liberals have to decide whether they prefer a country where they may not always get their way in terms of policy, but at least don't undermine fundamental principles they supposedly believe in, like freedom of speech and tolerance for others' opinions, or whether they are so attached to the policy agenda of utopian democratic socialism that they would rather make common cause with a censorious left that hates everybody on the right so much they'll just call them racist.
	And it's pretty obvious which way the liberals are moving.
	They're not moving in the direction of open conversation.
	They're not moving in the direction of having open discussion with people with whom they disagree.
	They're overtly moving against that.
	Excellent indicator of this yesterday from Jonathan Chait.
	So people have asked me before, who are people who are liberal, who I enjoy reading sometimes, and I've said from time to time Jonathan Chait.
	I've actually cited Jonathan.
	Jonathan Chait would never say anything similar about me.
	This is the rule on social media, which is that if you're a person on the right and you're nice to somebody on the left, That's basically OK.
	But if you're a person on the left and you are you're nice to somebody on the right, you are immediately excoriated.
	If you're the Girl Scouts and you say something nice about Amy Corny Barrett, then you are immediately excoriated.
	You've done something deeply wrong.
	OK, so Jonathan Chait, I think, can fairly be assumed to be a mainstream Democratic liberal.
	He's somebody who supposedly believes in the evils of cancel culture.
	He's somebody who supposedly believes in the First Amendment and freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
	He wouldn't be somebody who would just make common cause with the radical left, right?
	He would be somebody who is for free and open discussion, except that he is now engaged, Shade, in a campaign to basically call everybody he disagrees with a racist, which is a way of endorsing the program of the left.
	Once you have labeled somebody as a racist, there is no reason to have a conversation with them.
	Now they are in the untouchable class.
	Now they have been put in the basket of deplorables with whom you may never have a conversation.
	This is the goal.
	This is what they are attempting to do.
	So yesterday, Jonathan Chait tweeted out, conservatives like Charles Cook, who's the editor of National Review, and Ben Shapiro used to find Trump's racism embarrassing.
	Then they concluded they like it.
	Okay, this is an amazing statement.
	It's an amazing statement.
	So, he argues that Charles Cook, who, by the way, didn't even say that he's voting for Trump, and I, because I say that I'm voting for Trump, even though I didn't vote for Trump in 2016, we now embrace and love Trump for being a racist.
	Now, there's not a statement Trump has made that I think is racist that I have defended.
	In fact, I've called him out on any statement that I think that he has made that is racist.
	So, for example, when he suggested that a Mexican judge was incapable of judging a case on Trump University because of his Mexican heritage, He was not, in fact, Mexican.
	He was born in the United States.
	I said that is a racist comment.
	I've ripped Trump up and down when I think he has said something that it doesn't matter.
	According to Jonathan Chait, anybody who is going to vote for Trump, anybody who disagrees with Jonathan Chait that Trump overall is a racist, anybody who disagrees with any of that stuff is, in fact, a racist.
	The liberals in this country, the people like Joe Biden, they're not going to make common cause with people on the center right.
	They're not going to make common cause with people who are in favor of free speech.
	They're not in favor of strengthening the protections of the First Amendment.
	They're not in favor of strengthening the ability to disseminate information.
	They're very much in favor of the social media campaigns that turn every corporation, every press outlet, into an instrument for their utopian goals.
	That's the choice that's been put to mainstream liberals and mainstream liberals are failing that choice.
	And Joe Biden is a great indicator of a person who is failing that choice.
	Do I think that Joe Biden is going to defend the rights of conservatives to be heard on social media?
	No, I damn well don't.
	I can name off the top of my head a thousand conservatives who are going to defend the right of liberals to disseminate their informations on Twitter.
	But I can't name a single Democrat who right now is willing to actually stand up and say anything about this in a position of power.
	Not one.
	This is the problem in the country.
	The woke have taken over the party, not because the woke represent a majority of the Democratic Party, but because all it takes is a radical minority that is willing to sit out elections, a radical minority that is willing to use its power in concerted ways to convince the liberals that they ought to side with that radical minority rather than building some sort of bridges with people with whom they disagree and getting half a loaf rather than the entire loaf.
	That is the math that the liberals are doing right now, and it's an ugly, ugly, ugly math.
	Okay, meanwhile, there is a piece of good news for the Trump administration going into the election five days out from the election.
	The GDP...
	The GDP statistic is great this quarter.
	GDP was up 33%.
	Now we are still down net on the year, but that is a very, very good number, right?
	I mean, the GDP stat jumping 33%, it's the highest jump in GDP in the history of the United States.
	That is because as lockdowns began to alleviate, people started to go back to work, people started to go back to business, people started to live their lives again.
	And as people start to live their lives again, infections start to spread.
	The best way to limit infections is to socially distance from people, not to be in a room for 15 minutes, in an air-conditioned room for 15 minutes with people.
	And if you are going to be in close contact with people, then wear a mask, right?
	We know all of this.
	We know all of this.
	But the new push is obviously we have to shut everything down, apparently forever, right?
	This is the new push.
	Everything must be shut down until the end of time is the new goal.
	Now, I understand, and I've said before, that I think COVID is dangerous.
	Of course, COVID is dangerous.
	It is more dangerous than the flu.
	It is not more dangerous than the flu for young people.
	It is less dangerous than the flu for young people.
	But it is more dangerous than the flu, particularly for the elderly.
	But COVID does not justify the kind of actions that we are seeing across Europe.
	It does not justify the kind of actions that we are seeing proposed in the United States.
	We have to bring the hospitalization rates down.
	There is good news.
	We have some therapeutics that are now being trotted out.
	There's a good study that came out on Regeneron today.
	That study shows that the rate of hospitalization has been reduced by around 50 to 60% for people who take Regeneron early.
	That's the monoclonal antibody treatment that you've heard Dr. Mari Makkari talk about on this program from Johns Hopkins University.
	So there are therapeutics that are being used.
	They're bringing down the death rate fairly radically.
	Still, we have to get the hospitalization rate down.
	That means that young people cannot infect old people, so we have to be careful.
	But what we are seeing now, in Britain, there's talk about literally having the police break into people's homes and break up family gatherings.
	We've heard the same thing about Thanksgiving gatherings from Gavin Newsom in the state of California.
	We are treating COVID like it is airborne Ebola.
	It is not airborne Ebola.
	The current statistics on COVID from the CDC.
	The latest CDC estimates of infection fatality rate by age.
	If you are age 0 to 19, your chance of dying from COVID is 3 in 100,000.
	For every 100,000 infections for people under the age of 20, there will be 3 people who die.
	If you're between the ages of 20 and 49, by the way, this is for all populations, right?
	This is not separating off the healthy from the unhealthy.
	So if you're healthy, your chances are way lower than this, right?
	If you're unhealthy, if you have clinical obesity, if you have diabetes, if you have serious heart issues, obviously your chances are much higher.
	So this doesn't striate by health condition, it's just by age.
	If you're between the ages of 20 and 49, then your death rate, your infection fatality rate from COVID is one in 5,000.
	Right?
	Two in 10,000 infections.
	So for every 10,000 people in your age range who are infected, two will die.
	If you're between 50 and 69, every 995 out of 1,000 infections you'll survive.
	Five deaths per 1,000.
	Once you hit above the age of 70, everything kills you, right?
	Once you hit above the age of 70, then there'll be 5.4 deaths per 100 infections.
	Because basically, once you're above the age of 70, then the flu can kill you also, right?
	I mean, there's very, like, it's more deadly than the flu for people who are above the age of 70.
	But actually, there's less of a differential between death rates from flu and COVID between the ages of 70 and death than there is between the ages of 50 and 69, for example, because you're just more vulnerable when you are of that age.
	Nonetheless, we are talking about full-scale lockdowns nearly everywhere on Earth.
	So this shows a couple of things.
	One, Donald Trump is not actually responsible for the spread of COVID.
	It turns out that France is having a massive, massive breakout of COVID.
	Germany is having a massive breakout of COVID.
	Italy is having a massive breakout of COVID.
	The EU is getting walloped right now.
	It turns out, the heavier you locked down in the first place, the more you're getting a spike in COVID right now.
	France is now going to reimpose a nationwide lockdown.
	Germany will close bars and restaurants and impose other restrictions for a month in a last-ditch effort to protect hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with virus patients as Europe battles a second wave of the pandemic.
	Remember, Germany was the big success story.
	It turns out COVID comes for everybody sooner or later.
	For months, according to the New York Times, European countries have tried to slow the spread of the virus through targeted restrictions aimed at avoiding the tough nationwide lockdowns imposed in the spring.
	But the measures have not succeeded at halting the surge in cases and hospitalizations, putting more drastic limits on daily life back in play.
	Officials are prioritizing keeping schools and some economic activity open in stark contrast to the spring, when movement was severely limited.
	President Emmanuel Macron argues that officials had no choice but to impose another lockdown in the face of limited hospital capacity.
	He says much of Europe is facing a similar situation.
	He says that Europe is being overwhelmed by a second wave we now know will probably be harder and more deadly than the first.
	Most non-essential businesses will be closed again, including bars and restaurants.
	Movement outside the home will be strictly limited.
	Private and public gatherings will be banned.
	Universities will pivot to online classes.
	Some jobs will remain open, but the lockdowns are going to be in effect through at least December 1st.
	This is in France.
	So obviously this is Donald Trump's fault.
	Also, it shows that lockdowns are exactly what you thought they were.
	They're just a delay tactic.
	That's all they are.
	So you can either lock down forever, or you can acknowledge that there is a risk to living daily life, and then you can go out and live your life, and you can take precautions that are responsible.
	In the UK, they're going absolutely wild.
	In the UK, a police commissioner now says that officers may break into Christmas family dinners if they flout lockdown rules, which seems like a pretty grave violation of personal privacy for a disease that is extremely unlikely to kill people who are under the age of 50.
	Right now, the United States is experiencing a surge as well.
	Three dozen states have reported the average number of people currently hospitalized with COVID-19 rose by at least 5% over the past week.
	Admiral Brett Giroir, Assistant Secretary of Health, says we are at another critical point in the pandemic response.
	And of course, he encouraged people to avoid crowded gatherings and wash your hands a lot.
	The United States reported 73,000 new cases on Tuesday, bringing the seven-day average of new cases up to about 71,832.
	Right now, there's worry about hospitalizations, which are starting to climb pretty significantly.
	This is actually the third wave of hospitalizations that we've seen.
	We saw a giant wave at the beginning, then we saw that southern wave that happened during the summer when people went into air-conditioned areas, and now we are seeing a third wave.
	The places where we are seeing the highest rates of newly reported cases are exactly the places that didn't get hit hard the first time, right?
	Basically, everywhere that avoided it is now getting walloped.
	So North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, right?
	States that are actually not getting walloped right now include Florida, which got walloped before, and places like New York, which is not getting hit particularly hard.
	There's a spike there, but it's not a spike that is anywhere close to the caseload in places like North Dakota.
	So, bottom line is that this is what everybody thought it was, right?
	It is going to wave through the United States.
	It is going to do what it does.
	You can take mitigating measures, and that's pretty much all you can do.
	The stock market took a dump yesterday because of all of this as the lockdowns approach.
	That, of course, is not a great shock.
	Anthony Fauci, who's been unleashed to be his pessimistic doom and gloom self, he says that it may be the end of 2021 and maybe beyond before we reach a sense of normalcy.
	By the way, that's not going to happen.
	It isn't.
	If you think that the world is simply going to put everything on pause, For a disease that is not killing extraordinary rates of people under the age of 70?
	I mean it's killing... When I say not extraordinary, I mean like not Ebola.
	Not MERS.
	Right?
	It is killing people at an outsized rate compared to the flu.
	But you probably don't know that many people if you are under the age of 70 who have died of the flu.
	Okay, but here's Anthony Fauci saying, we're basically going to, we're going to be in this stasis situation until maybe 2022.
	And here's the thing, the closer you lock people down, the more you lock people down, the less effect it's going to have.
	People are just going to start ignoring it.
	Already, you can see it.
	Already, you can see that people have basically said, okay, well, if I get it, I get it.
	And that's just the way it's going to work because you cannot prevent people from living their lives this way.
	Here's Anthony Fauci promoting Zoom and Gloom.
	I would imagine, at least in the United States, the way things are looking, that if we get a vaccination campaign and by the second or third quarter of 2021, we have vaccinated a substantial proportion of the people, I think it will be easily by the end of 2021 and perhaps even into the next year before we start having some semblances of normality.
	And it really depends on what you mean by normal.
	Okay, well, if by what we mean by normal is normal, that's not going to happen.
	And nobody's gonna stay home until the end of time by borrowing money from the future in order to stay home for a disease that, if you're under the age of 20, is killing you at a rate of 3 per 100,000, and if you are under the age of 50, is killing you at a rate of 2 per 10,000.
	That's not going to happen.
	It just isn't.
	But at least some folks on the left are acknowledging what is at stake right here.
	So Eddie Glaude, who is a commentator over on MSNBC, he suggests that to even value freedom is a waste of time.
	We should just stop it.
	Stop valuing freedom and liberty.
	He says that we have to stop explo- You know, it's the talk of freedom and liberty that's killing people.
	No, you can be free, and you can live a liberated life, and you can also be responsible.
	These things are not mutually exclusive.
	But the idea of the left is that freedom itself is the danger.
	Which ties into freedom of speech and every other thing that the left believes about freedom.
	Freedom itself is the danger.
	Here's Eddie Glaude saying that the right keeps using freedom talk as an excuse for irresponsibility.
	Maybe the right is using freedom talk because I don't think it's appropriate for the government to break into my family Thanksgiving dinner because they want to protect grandma.
	I just don't think that's appropriate.
	Grandma is a sentient human being.
	We are all sentient human beings.
	Here is Eddie Glaude, though, saying freedom and liberty, I presume, are bad now under these circumstances.
	This is the exploitation of an ideological commitment to something called liberty or freedom.
	And the casualty, the collateral damage, happens to be 227,000 dead Americans.
	27,000 dead Americans in the name of a certain idea of liberty and freedom.
	That's just nonsense.
	It's nonsense.
	Hundreds of thousands of people have died in other countries with lockdowns, with mandatory masking.
	And the idea here is that if you like freedom and blame it on freedom and liberty, that's not what's going on here.
	It isn't.
	Okay?
	And freedom and liberty does not mean I have the freedom and liberty to go cough in an old person's face.
	That's not what we're talking about here.
	The left is pro-lockdown because the left generally believes that freedom is not Freedom allows the freedom to do wrong, and therefore freedom itself is the threat.
	That is an ideology that should not sustain contact with reality.
	But it does.
	There are a lot of people who believe that government can save you from everything, including yourself.
	Alrighty.
	We'll be back here later today for 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 Colton Haas.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boren.
	Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Production manager, Pavel Lydowsky.
	Our associate producers are Nick Sheehan and Rebecca Doyle.
	The show is edited by Adam Siavitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	Liberal Republicans endorse Biden to support country over party.
	Big tech executives humiliate themselves in Senate testimony.
	And the anti-Trump anonymous author outs himself just days before the election.

▲