Will the Federal Reserve go to war with President Trump? Should America stop detaining illegal immigrants? Is a lesbian dating a transgender man? Now straight all of these questions, more will be answered on this episode of the Ben Shapiro show I'm not getting what actually gonna answer that last question released. The Washington post is going to try to because the media are guardians and are firefighters, everything's going swell in America guys. So, let's just jump right into the news. Apparently, the key yield curve has now inverted worst worst level since two thousand seven, that's some good news to brighten up your morning or your afternoon. Thirty year rate has now dropped under two percent. According to CNBC Long term, treasury rates added spend month long slide on Tuesday aggravating a key yield curve inversion and send the ten year yield to its lowest level against the two year rate, since two thousand and seven. In other words, everybody in the world is buying long term bonds, they're trying

we store their money in long term bonds because they do not have a lot of faith in the short term economy. The yield on the benchmark. Two year Treasury note more sensitive to changes in federal reserve policy felt one dot, five to six percent, which is five basis points above the ten year notes rate of one point: four: seven, six percent, after closing, inverted on Monday before August. The last in version of this part of the yield curve, was the one that began in December two thousand and five two years before the financial crisis and the subsequent recession. So there's pretty solid information now that, sometime in the next couple of years, the economy is going to slow substantially, maybe dump into recession. Now the Federal Reserve has been pressured obviously by President Trump in heavy ways to pump up the inflationary policy at the FED. That, of course, is a bad idea. As a general rule, I am not in favor, conservatives should not be in favor of manipulation of the currency at the Federal Reserve level, they should not be in favor of the central Bank of the United States, affectively, manipulating interest rates. They should not be in favor of any of this, because, when the Federal Reserve messes around with the interest rates,

there's a significant possibility that you are creating a bubble that will then burst is also true that the Federal Reserve was supposed to be a political. Their goal is to be a backstop in case of emergency is supposed to be a two thousand and seven slash. Two thousand and eight recession. The Federal Reserve stepped in to cut interest rates and jog spending, for example, was not supposed to be at a politician, need to live until the Federal Reserve cuts rates. In fact, the Federal Reserve supposed to be the responsible actor here and the fact that President Trump is calling on the Federal Reserve not to be responsible in order to pump up the economy in advance of the election is not a particularly good thing, and if a Democrat we're doing this, Republicans would rightly be outraged. Now. Does that mean that the Federal Reserve should be acting politically? No, it doesn't. The theme of today's show is going to be the failure of our institutions and the fact that everyone is losing faith in our institutions and for good reason. The politicization of our institutions in every single possible way is devastating to America's social fabric, to our trust in each other.

If you cannot trust that our institutions are going to run like they are supposed to run, and it's going to be very different to explain why we should have delegated power to those institutions in the first place. Maybe these two libertarian moment, alternatively, maybe at least two tribal warfare- politics in which you don't care about the institution themselves and maintaining the integrity of the institutions themselves. All you care about is who is in control of the government done we get to all of this in just one. Second is particularly depressing message in just one second, but first I believe dinner gun ownership for a variety of reasons, I believe in gun ownership, because I care a lot about my personal safety and the safety of my face. Only I care about gun ownership, because I believe that the second amendment is a check against government. Encroaching on all the other amendments. Right now is your chance to claim nineteen free entries to win a gun from the: U S, C C, a responsible people should own firearms and use them responsibly in the. U S. E C believes the same thing this month, in this month, only you'll get nineteen three chances to win. One thousand bucks to buy a gun. You any gun, you'd like even a beautiful brand new Kimber. Ninety

eleven, just by texting in right now, just text. The word win, two hundred and eighty seven, two hundred and twenty two an claimer entries. It really is that simple US concealed Carry association is dedicated to providing world class self defense, education, training and legal protection to responsibly armed Americans. Like you and like me, their mission is to provide you with the tools and resources that you need to protect yourself and your loved ones before bring after a self defense incident. I trust them to help me become a better protector of my family. You should trust them as well text win two hundred and eighty seven. You too right now find out more claim your nineteen free entries to win one thousand bucks for a new gun. Again, that is, text win in two hundred and eighty seven, twenty two w, I n and eighty seven to two to the: U S c c, a provides all sorts of great resources to gun owners and potential gunners go check them out right now, text win two hundred and eighty seven, two hundred and twenty two to check them out and also to have that ability to be entered to win

one thousand bucks to buy any gun. You want it's eighty, seven to two to win two, eighty, seven to twenty, two. Okay, so with the economic backdrop that we currently have, as the backdrop there's a report from the New York Times, that should undercut your faith in institutions hey if the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an impartial broker. If the Federal Reserve is supposed to be an institution that stands apart from the hurly, the hurdy gurdy of everyday politics. Well, then, this should be a disquieting story. According to the New York Times, the FED could hit back at Trump, a former top official suggests. According Quienes me out, like reporting to the New York Times. A former top federal official implied that the central bank should consider allowing president from Straid war to hurt his two thousand and twenty election chances and uh version that drew a firestorm of criticism and rare push back from the FED itself. William Dudley is former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is now research, scholar, Prince University, and he said in a Bloomberg opinion piece that President Trump's reelection arguably presents a threat

to the US and global economy. Dudley added that if the goal monetary policy is to achieve the best long term, economic outcome and FED officials consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in two thousand and twenty there's. An astonishing statement from the former president of the FED Reserve Bank of New York he's openly stating now that the officials at the Federal Reserve should be attempting to tip the elections were a Democrat in order to help the economy. Does that give you faith in the Federal reserve? Similarly, give you faith in the Federal Reserve if the FED Reserve chairman we're just taking orders from the President of the United States, would that make you feel secure about the safety and Security of America's economy? This is a particularly controversial statement, says the New York Times coming from an official who ranked among the FED's most powerful policymakers as recently as two thousand and eighteen it also come. Is it a sensitive moment for the FED which has been under attack from Mr Trump and trying to its independence from the White House and politics in general, Michelle Smith, the feds spokeswoman said when asked about the column, quote the Federal Reserve.

First policy decisions are guided solely by its congressional mandate to maintain prices, ability and maximum employment. Political considerations play absolutely no role, but this is the problem how the Federal Reserve operates as a general rule. The fact is that the Federal Reserve is constantly attempting to tip balance is for or against particular executive policies pursued by presidents of both parties. Really, what the Federal Reserve should be there to do is to set a low, steady interest rate. Does not Freeman's point known, Freeman suggested the Federal Reserve should set a low, steady interest rate and that there should be basically, they should aim for maybe a two percent inflation rate every year to jog the economy to keep people spending, but they should not be inflating the currency while or deflating the currency wildly, and they should be there in case of some sort of catastrophic collapse. This is the the sort of Chicago School of Economics you in order to insure that currency doesn't just disappear from the market place. The the Vienna, the the austrian School of economics

go even further. They say there should be no Federal reserve, just pegged the price of the dollar to the price of gold and be done with it. There shouldn't be any government agency that is involved, create sort of moral hazard at the Federal Reserve. It is going to fix all problems with the economy regardless, but the Chicago School of Economics and the austrian School of economics would suggest that the politicization of the fat, which did happen under Franklin, Delano, Roosevelt, the politicization of the pet, the FED the executive branch ordering the FED what to do, or, conversely, the FED, acting as an independent political agent to militate against a president of a particular that is going to undermine your faith in republican institutions, and it should we're watching this happen day in and day out, faith in each of our ITU. It seemingly one by one, is crumbling now. What that would theoretically suggest is that what we need is for the constitutional system of checks, and

this is to kick in what we would need right now is, if you don't have faith in any one branch of the government, then you should have faith that the entire government is going to gridlock itself. That you're not going to sure we don't trust the executive branch, if you're a Democrat right now. Well, that's what the legislatures for- and you don't trust the legislature if you're a republican that the executive branch is for you. Don't trust that sherry, that's at the legislature and the executive branch are for you, don't trust the federal government general. That's what the state governments are for the entire system of checks and balances imposed by the founders assumed in endemic level of mistrust in our institutions. This is where the constitution really should become valuable. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the left these days or pushing against those checks and balances at the same time we're losing faith in the institutions so the institute, it is no longer have our faith, and now they want to get rid of checks and balances. So if you don't trust the institutions- and you don't like the checks, balance is what you're really arguing for is taking control of the institutions, so you can use them on behalf of your own favorite policies. Well, that is

very dangerous and republic. Basically, that is two people that turns government into the Joker's game in the dark knight. Splitting a pool cue and throwing out there and saying whoever controls the pool pool cue gets to be employed here. It turns it into a tribal fight war by other means I suggested earlier this week been pushing. This are the folks in the far left, so Jim El Bulli, who is not a very good columnist over the New York Times. He I enjoy some of his work. I will say that I don't think that he thinks through a lot of his own ideas, has an opinion piece in the New York Times, suggesting that Alexandra Ocasio Cortez understands democracy better than republicans do, which is false. Aoc understands literally nothing, except for using instagram, better than republicans do and may the dancing on rooftops, but that is a matter of opinion. Well, Billy says, spend enough time talking, politics on the internet or in any other public for

from and you'll run into this standard reply to anyone who wants more democracy in american government or a republic, not a democracy. Yes, because that's true, you saw it over the weekends as Jamal Buoy in in exchange between representatives AOC and in Crenshaw of Texas. Friendswood Ben Shapiro Show, in a brief series of Tweets Ocasio Cortez, made the case against the electoral College and uh need for a national popular vote to choose the president. Every vote should be equal in America. No matter who you are or where you come from. The right thing to do is establish a popular vote and GOP will do everything they can to fight it friend. Shot was fired with AOC before jumped. In with the response. Abolishing the electoral college means the power actions will only campaign in and listen to urban areas. That is not a representative democracy. He said we live in a republic which means fifty one percent of the population doesn't get to boss around the other. Forty nine percent, then Gmail Bully suggests that the crux of Crenshaw's argument we live in a republic is wrong. He says

it doesn't say not a democracy, but it's implied by the next clause or he rejects majority rule. You can fill in the blanks of the argument from there. The founding fathers built a government to stymie the tyranny of the majority. They contrast if their republic with democracy, which they condemned, is dangerous and unstable. As John Adams wrote in an eight fourteen letter to the Virginia politician, John Taylor, democracy never lasts long. It's in wasted, Dawson murders itself. There never was a democracy, yet that did not commit suicide, but there's a problem says Jamal Buoy for the founders, democracy did not mean majority rule in a system of representation. The men who led the revolution and divides the constitution or immersed in classical literature and political theory, and in Greece in particular, was a cautionary tale. When James Madison Project democracy in federalist number ten, he meant the athenian sort, a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person. He says in more modern terms: the founders feared direct democracy and accounted for its dangers with the system of representative democracy. Yes, this republic had counter majoritarian

suspects, but it was not designed for minority rule. Nobody suggested that it was designed for minority rule, but if Jemele boy is truly suggesting that the founders were big fans of pure Majora Terrain ISM, he hasn't read the entirety of the Federalist papers. I'm sorry, federalist, ten, isn't the only federalist paper there like eighty of them. So now that is incorrect in the Federalist papers, make quite clear that they were for that. The founders were very much afraid of faction, they're, afraid of the power of the majority to over run the rights guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, the the it's amazing to to see, but we completely missed. The point like this is virtually everything was geared toward producing representative majorities that could govern on behalf of the country, to diminish fact in favor of consensus and in the case of the electoral college. The point wasn't to stymie majorities but to provide a way to find a competent and popular chief executive. In a large nation of parochial states, well, it was to form eight eight electoral college majority out of a plow.

Morality was probably one of the purposes, so it was to turn a minority into a majority in some cases and when it comes to producing representative majority overwhelming majorities, the key founders were very much in favor of fifty one percent, forty nine percent. They were very much not in favor of but again this is Jamelle Bouie stumping against institutions of our government that were designed to curb our lack of faith in the institutions themselves. Now he wants to get rid of the checks and balances, because these argument could be made on exactly the same basis for getting rid of the United States Senate. After all, the United States Senate gives the exact same number of presented Montana, which has like ten people as it does to California, which has fifty million people. So why shouldn't you make the same argument about getting rid of the Senate of the United States as it turns out this, isn't? The only attack on institutions that are media are pushing they're, also pushing attacks on our very system of immigration on borders at all, we'll get to that in just

one. Second, first, let's talk about the uncertainty that we are seeing right now springing from the Federal Reserve springing from international currency markets. Do you feel uneasy with the fact that policy makers across the world are now relying on central banks to prop up their economies with inflation and deflation and raising interest rates and lowering interest rates? Maybe you're interested in investing in currency that is not dependent on the vacillation of central bankers, were now dependent on them political whim of their masters in government all over the world. Well, this may be one reason that you she seriously considered, including some crypto currency in your profile in your portfolio, cryptocurrency is basically the digital equivalent of gold. What it is is a currency that is protected by blockchain they're, not manufacturing more of it. The idea is that it holds value specifically because you can't change it. There's nobody who's, manipulating the currency Etoro is, is smart. Crypto trading made Eazy E Toro Social Trading platform, has over eleven million traders and facilitates over

trillion dollars in trading volume per year. Globally, you can access the world's best cryptocurrencies they've got fifteen different coins available and get low and transparent fees. Try it before you, trade, virtual portfolio with one hundred thousand dollars budget, never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alert sign up today at e toro dot com, Slash Shapiro, that is e t, o r, o dot com, Slash Shapiro E, Toro, dot com, Slash Shapiro, go check them out right now. It's really great that you can try it before he can trade, and that means that you actually get experience with it see how it works. For you, e Toro, dot com, slash appear, that's e, toro dot com, Slash Shapiro Crypto may sound intimidating, but this is why you should go: give them a look over each world and learn Maury Toro dot com, Slash Shapiro, okay, so it is not just in attempt to undermine institutions like the Electoral College or the United States Senate. More more Democrats are suggesting the Senate is not representative, because, obviously it's not, but it wasn't created to be representative. It was created to manufacture to Riko.

Why are the manufacture of large scale? Majorities near super majorities in many cases, in order for the government to get anything done specifically because the founders feared that the institutions would not be faithfully executed. The solution for a lot of folks on the left and some people on the right to is that we should just over on all those checks and balances, and really we should have an effective government that gets things done the way I want them done. That is incredibly interest. Your rights are protected by the inability of the government to do things. That is what the founders, what him and now you've got the New York Times, stumping, not just against the Electoral College or the Senate. You've got them stumping against the very idea of borders. So the you know York Times editorial they're, they're, wonderful editorial board. They have eight an editorial today. Called the operation system is a mess. Trump's policies are making it worse, been an eventful few weeks. In President Trump's ever escalating crusade to restrict immigration on August 12th is administration, announced a rule, change, making it more difficult for poor immigrants to obtain green cards

by giving officials more leeway in assessing who is likely to become a public charge, meaning someone who relies on public services and it's good policy. If you immig right here, and we think that you're going to be on welfare, you shouldn't be immigrating here. On August 21st, it introduced a new rule jettisoning the existing twenty day limit on holding migrant children in detention. That was designed specifically, so we didn't have to separate children from parents and also so we did not have to release parents into the interior of the United States, show up for one court hearing and then receive a province, little green card and overstated green card and become permanent illegal residents of the United States. The next tag, according to the New York Times, the president reasserted his interest in abolishing birthright citizenship. The con as usual guarantee that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen. They say, whatever its long term implications. The president's obsession with what his true is an immigrant invasion is already undermining the functioning of his administration and the safety of the nation. The Boston Globe reported last week, a man diversion of immigration officers from New England to the southwest border will bring to a stop the process

of nearly all forty thousand asylum requests pending in New England, similar back in March senior staff members that US citizenship and immigration services that by years end, the agency would shut down its international division, which assists overseas applicants applying to immigrate to the United States to redirect resources to the border crisis, as if the league well, immigration system needed additional stressors. Okay, so now you're just objecting to Trump redirecting resource is so that we can enforce our southern border. I don't see you calling on Democrats to provide additional funding, so we can continue doing all of these things, well ensuring safety and security at our southern border. What the New York Times wants is catch and release. What the New York Times once is catching Rolley's end of story. They want open borders, they do not want people who have the United States illegally deported and they also don't want people who are entering the United States possibly illegally before before their asylum claims be adjudicated detained.

They simply want an open border where people can walk across disappear into the interior and stay forever. That is pretty much the only way to read this editorial. They say they say. The White House appears ambivalence about the threat of white supremacist um. Earlier this month, CNN reported that for more than a year, the White House rebuffed efforts by homeland security to make domestic terrorism a strategic priority, so now they're suggesting that Trump ignoring white nationalism in favor of immigration policy. But our federal government spends four trillion dollars year. It seems to me they should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and if we're talking about long term effects on the United States. Yes, white nationalism is evil, it is a problem. What's the premise is um is problem. It is also a minute number of people in absolute terms or providing an out size threat as opposed to you know. If you're, if you're just talking about things that will affect the country on a broad level for decades to come,

millions of people entering the country illegally without any checking balance is going to provide a pretty significant change to the country. Now, obviously, that change is going to come with good is going to come with bad. It's not an unmitigated you'll like white Nationalism, a white supremacist um, of course. Of course. Of course, I'm not equating the two, but to suggest that the federal government should spend all of its priority money on fighting white nationalism, and none on the border is insane. That's patently crazy. The New York Times, though, again stumping against the institution of having a border, the every president brings into office a particular set of principles and priorities. But when those biases start undercutting the government's ability to pursue smart policies or even carry out basic duties, a responsible leader must think less about his personal prerogatives and more about the nation's overall security. Again, I don't see the New York Times ever covering it when an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime, I'm goes on to commit more crimes. The fact is that there are significant downsides associate with not knowing who comes into the country. This is perfectly obvious.

Yes, we should be spending more money and more time and more resources fighting white supremacists, but this is not an either or choice at all. It's patently insane to suggest that it is okay, so we were we're busy undermining our faith in the Federal Reserve, we're busy undermining our faith in the checks and balances that would that would stymie our lack of faith in these various institutions. We are undermining basic policy that any country has to enforce like having a ball, and now we are talking about undermining the credibility of the media. That's supposed to cover all of this and that that the media can do themselves. They don't need any outside actors, doing that we'll get to that in just one. Second, first, let's talk about losing your hair, okay, so male pattern, baldness runs in my family. It means I am deeply worried about losing my hair. Lots of dudes are losing your hair is no fun and two out of three dudes will experience hair loss by the time, they're thirty five, which makes me nervous since I am now thirty five introducing keeps the easiest and most affordable way to keep the hair you have starting in just ten bucks per month.

You'll never have to worry about hair loss again getting started is super easy signing up, takes less than five minutes. Just answer a few simple questions: snap some photos to complete your online doctor consultation ah licensed physician, will then review your information online recommend the right treatment for you. It's shipped directly to your door. Every three months keeps treatments are up to ninety percent effective at reducing and stopping for their hair loss. It's only ten bucks to thirty five bucks a month plus right now. You can get your first month for free if you suffer from hair loss. The last thing you need is to wait to see a doctor. I mean you should try it right now before you lose all your hair with keeps there's finally away,

you get the help you need when you need it for a limited time receive your first month of treatment for free, go to keeps dot com, Slash Ben again. If you suffer from hair loss, you can receive your first month of treatment for free, just go to k e p s, dot, com, Slash Ben, that's keeps dot com, Slash Ben, go check it out right now, okay, so the media, another institution that you would figure has to provide some sort of checking Mount. So we no longer trust the FED. We apparently are not going to trust the electoral college were going to get rid of the checks and balances. So what would be the check and balance on that? Well, an honest media right, a media that covers that covers the people in power without fear or favor. I got some bad news for you folks. It turns out that media are not doing any of that. It turns out that our media are one sided, that our media have been kissing. The asses of Democrats, literally my entire lifetime, and probably before well, simultaneously reporting the flimsiest speculative evidence about Republicans. These example comes courtesy of Lawrence O'Donnell, so long

so Donna was on MSNBC last night and he was with Rachel Maddow, who is happy to engage in conspiracy theories, particularly about Russia and O'Donnell, simply dumped out there. This idea that he has a source inside Deutsch Bay. That said, the President Trump's loans were under written by russian billionaire is close to let it happen again. This is this is now trending on twitter right, hash tag. Russian co signers is now trending on twitter. Why? Because so Donald said he has a eleven source, a secret source who says that Trump has russian CO signers. Now I'm just gonna point out a quick double standard here years back in his two thousand and twelve. I was working at Breitbart NEWS and I reported a story where I had a source and the source suggested that Chuck Hagel the nominee for Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama, had spoken to a group called friends of Hamas. It was a bad story. We shouldn't run it. It was based in this single source. It was reported as a rumor. In fact, I reported it

exactly the same way that Lawrence O'Donnell did hear what I said. This may not may not be true. It's a rumor Hagel has refused to respond all the rest of it. I was correctly excoriated for that. Ok, the story should have been reported. You shouldn't report, rumors Lawrence O'Donnell says it on MSNBC. Not only is it lended at lent. An enormous amount of credibility is now trending on Twitter as an absolute fact that this happened here is Lawrence O'Donnell, doing exactly what I was excoriated in two thousand and twelve for doing properly, but doing it, and not only that being feeded for for here's Lawrence, O'Donnell, just kind of spilling out nonsense. The single source, close Georgia MAC has told me that the Trump Donald Trump's loan documents their show has co signers, that's how he was able to obtain those loans and the at the co signers are russian oligarchs. Really, that would explain it seems to me

every kind word. Donald Trump has ever said about Russia and Vladimir Putin. If true- and I stress the if true yeah- That'S- that is a scenario that I have never contemplated this true. If true, if true, yes and in the media ran with this US, this is being widely reported now, there's no other evidence to suggest. This is true other than Lawrence O'Donnell's word, based on the single source supposedly placed inside Deutsche Bank. We somehow has gotten hold of Donald Trump's loan documents. Sure sure now is trending on twitter and people are Trump will be impeached because of this. Yes, they undercutting your own institutional credibility. Believe me, it didn't need Trump to call you guys, fake news in order for you to destroy yourselves, it's pretty astonishing and there are a bevy of examples of this. This week I mean they're, just a bevy of it. Samples of the media humiliating themselves today mean not even sweet like in the last twenty four hours,

for example, big headline over at the Washington Post, William Barr Books, Trump's hotel for thirty thousand dollars Holiday party. That sounds bad right now. It sounds like the Doj is spending money with the Presiden hotel, maybe in order to curry favor with him or something doesn't sound good, there's only one problem: hey here's! The problem pretty much! The story is nonsense. Here's the wash can post reporting attorney general, William P bar is planning a holiday treat for his boss. Really is that is that what he's doing it's a holiday treat for Trump right last month, bar book to President Trump Dc Hotel Hotel for two hundred person Holiday party in December, it is likely to deliver Trump's business. More thirty thousand dollars in revenue bar signed a contract, a copy of which was obtained by the wash things in post for a family holiday party in the hotel presidential ballroom December eighth. The party will feature a buffet in a four hour open bar for about two hundred people. Then here is the actual crux of the store bar is paying for the event himself, the Doj

not covering any of this. No taxpayer dollars are being expended on this. Also, our only chose the venue after the other hotel LT's in D C, including the Willard and the Mayflower, were booked according to the Doj, so it wasn't like he went to. Donald Trump is like you know what I'm gonna slip: thirty grand in your pocket here, first of all, Trump free, rich and need thirty rand! Hey! You don't need to do more than that. I assume to bribe the president of the United States to do what exactly, but apparently is very yeah, William BAR one hundred three separate hotel, the only one that had availability the night that he wanted was Trump's hotel, which is a big hotel in DC, believe it or not, they're, not a lot of big hotels in Washington DC like in the immediate area. I've ever stayed in Washington DC. It really is like two or three hotels. Although hotels, they're, gonna hole in the walls and small, the official said, the purpose of bars Party wasn't to curry favor with the President well, clearly, not because you could just pick up the phone and kiss from ass. If you wanted to curry favor with Trump it ain't that difficult people do it on fox and friends, all the time really not

off bar holds the bash annually. Okay, so it's not even like he does this regularly. He has the part every single year he went to two uh hotels, trying to book it there they were both booked, so went Trump's hotel, any spending the money out of his own pocket and by the way this was clear. With the ethics office, the official said career ethics officials were consulted. They determined that ethics rules not prohibit him from hosting his annual party at the Trump hotel. Okay, but it didn't matter this on the front page of the Washington Post the front. Obviously it's corruption. I want man, we should totally trust our media and then the Washington Post had a piece. Yesterday they ran an op, Ed Yester. That is just disastrously stupid. The piece was by a woman named Marissa Brostoff, and it was all about how the pro life movement is truly white supremacist, which is just absolute, sheer garbage, is absolute garbage. One of the chief talking points of the pro life

is it more. Black. Babies are aborted in New York City every year than bored pro life. People want to see more babies. We do not care whether those babies are black white or green. This is ridiculous. I mean if, if you were talking about the pro life woman being white supremacist, presumably they be very much in favor of the continued access of minority people to planned parenthood, because planned parenthood disproportionately performs abortions on ethnic minorities. Pro life people have been fighting against the eugenicist movement for literally the entirety of the pro life movement. Great single was a eugenicist assist and the founder planned parenthood. She was a any eugenicist. And this is this is insane okay, but the washing and post went even further and running this op ed. Okay, this hobbit originally included the following paragraph. You ready as border controls. Tighten the links between Pro Natal ism and nativism have once again become visible, inspired by Steve kings. Admiring remark about Kurt vile Ders is a politician in in the Netherlands, Isla Stewart, Stuart

yeah and popular White Nationalist Blog called wife, with a purpose issued a white baby chat and went viral in alt right circles. The mother of six asked audience members to have as many white babies as I have contributed to. That part is idiotic, but here is where it gets crazy. Meanwhile, as replacement discourse enters the conservative mainstream, talk of birth rates comes along with it. Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves selves that should bother us Jd Vance, author of the bestselling, only allergy told his audience at the National Conservatism conference last month early here this year, he described himself as appalled by Democrats. Permissive attitudes toward abortion advance did not need to spell out exactly who did not spell out exactly who is included in the word our as in our people. He didn't need to no, actually, he did need to because it turns what he was talking about. Was Americans he's an american need to be having more babies? Why? Because it undercuts America's culture, not for for Americans, all Americans not to have more babies, because it undercuts our economy not to have a future generation of taxpayers paying into our garbage upside

down pyramid schemes, that's what he was talking about, but according to the Washington Post Jd Vance is this is brutal racist for no reason the Washington Post actually had to cut it, and then they didn't even really issue a correction. They just cut the line. Yes, I totally trust our media. Another example of insane media bias today, there's a piece in the Washington Post, washing post, really covering itself in glory. Today. There's a piece of Washington Post called a Harvard freshman says he was denied entry to the US over social media post made by his friends it's by Deanna, Paul and Susan. It's Ferg. Is my obia? We touched down at Boston, Logan International Airport on Friday night, prepared to begin freshman year at Harvard University. The seventeen palestinian student never left the airport. The Harvard crimson reported US official detained for eight hours after creating the minor and searching his phone and computer then revoked his visa

and send him home to Lebanon. Why, according to a statement by a showee, an immigration officer claimed she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US though she discovered nothing is how we had posted himself a shall. We wrote after the five hours and she called me into a room and she started screaming at me. She said she found people posting political points of view that suppose the US on my friends list. I responded. I have no business with such posts and I didn't like share or comment on them and told I shouldn't be held responsible for what others post then reported visa was revoked and he returned to Lebanon. Shall we did not return any messages from the post. You can comment Harvard spokesman, Jonathan swaying, so in an emailed statement at the university is working closely with the family and appropriate authorities to resolve the matter. Michael Mccarthy is a spokesman for at G B p for customs and border protection. He said the department is responsible for ensuring the safety and admissibility of the goods and people entering the US. Applicants must demonstrate they are Edm well into the. U this individual,

it seems inadmissible based on information discovered during the CBC Cbp Inspection and the state department. Visa records are kept confidential under american law, so we can't discuss the details of individual cases, so, in other words, this story is solely based on a facebook account person who will not return phone calls from the Washington Post, who is not turned over social media accounts to the Washington Post and the story cannot be verified or disproven by C B, p by law. Apparently, this is indicative of the Trump administrations as in a phobia again solid reporting, their guys really really well done. I'm sure that seems higher story, because I'm sure that a person barred from the United States and barred from their spot at Harvard CP found something in their profile. I'm sure they would never ever FEB to the media or on Facebook. Ever now, maybe the store went down exactly the way he said, but certainly this story does not provide sufficient evidence that this should be reported. That's pretty insane, but again, the faith in our institutions is declining it

rapid rate as well. It should be. I'm gonna give you another Washington Post story covering himself in glory in just one. Second, this one, I think, is the height of insanity. First, the daily wire has turned four years old, so congrats to us congrats to our employees. You keep getting paid as a thank you to our fans, we're giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses this code birthday. Who magical for all of August is we celebrate this incredible milestone? We've been giving away a free first month for new premium monthly subscribers again just use that code birthday time is quickly running out. They're. Only three days left to get this deal so subscribe today and come join. The fun also get that annual subscription. When you do you get this, the very greatest in beverage of vessels, it grants eternal life. To you, I mean that's the pitch so far. It has not yet been disproved, but you know what to put that out there in the universe, because I have a soy source inside Deutsche Bank who says it's true in any case left. Where can you get that with the annual subscription nine hundred and ninety nine a month or ninety nine bucks a year which is cheaper than nine

ninety nine a month? Look it up! Look it up. Do the math, Google, it in nine hundred and ninety nine a month or ninety nine bucks a year check us out of daily dot com. We really appreciate you joining the club. We are the fastest fastest growing large is concerned about testing radio show in the nation. So it's not just the media have undermined institutional credibility in themselves which they have in radical fashion, and the polls show. It is not just that we have no Riel institutional Trust in the institute. The Doj or the or the Federal Reserve is not just that. We've lost trust in the system of checks. Balance is the keeps all of these institutions and check. Now we are undermining trust in the most basic social institutions. I'm talking about the institution of family, I'm talking about institutions that are even institutions, they're, just presuppositions of a civil society like language like using terms in common. Like logic, you cannot have a functional republic or even a function.

Democracy, if we're not speaking the same language, we have basically devolved into a town more of Babel scenario, so the left decided that we were all going to move in one year virtual direction. It turns out that human beings have different priorities and so in, let us all speaking the same language, to build something in common, good or bad. We have been devolved into this this insane code. This bizarre chaotic. Treatment of language and logic, that means that we can never have a conversation with each other again, let me give you an example of how we can never have a conversation again. This was a piece published on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday at the piece was titled to some. This queer couple look straight for him, okay for her. It feels like a lie again. This was published on the first page of the Washington Post website by Samantha Schmidt and forest billboard. So, first you might be asking yourself. Why is this being reported at all? Why? Why is this a story that a person feels uncomfortable

person feels uncomfortable is not a story. You no media outlet of worth their salt would run a story with that headline person feels uncomfortable with self definition. Welcome to the world where lots of people feel that way. No, this article is about how society is cruel and mean because it will not these a constantly shifting standard for sex and gender that makes everybody feel comfortable in their own skin. That's what this article is really about. What you're about to hear is in the same level of minute ation of language that makes no logical sense. There's no common standard, no logical sense, no internal structure, and yet, if you don't buy into the idea in the words, can randomly change, commerical shift shape shifters, they could just move around and that's because, as you are bad so now we're undermining human language and it's not just enough to undermine the Federal Reserve or undermine or undermine the media. Now now the media are busily undermining your basic human language ability to communicate with each other, because after you read, this piece

will be so confused. You never want to read another piece a here. We go when Kate, Murray and Andy Arnold first dating in their early 20s. They were part of a tight knit group of lesbian friends in the district. The couple in there friends hung out almost every weekend: organizing potluck, dinners and frequenting ladies night at local gay bars then about two years ago, and it came out as a transgender man and as it transition with Kate support. The couple suddenly felt they no longer belonged in the women centric spaces. They were used to. They try testing out a new group of friends, a blank slate, a group in which Andy wouldn't have to talk about his trans identity. He said he could just blend in as a man to the new friends. They were just Andy and Kate, a man taking a woman, and that was just you and I liked it, but to Kate it felt like a lie. She wants to express your queer identity. She said: how could she do that without making any uncomfortable okay? So we have two conflicts of vision here and one vision.

You have a lesbian who wants to be known as a lesbian, because she feels like it's a part of her identity to be a lesbian and she's dating a biological woman, so that would seem to fit the criteria. On the other hand, we have society in the media that suggest that if a biological woman has surgeries and hormone treatments and believe that she is a man that she is now a man which means that the former only lesbian woman is actually straight, because she is a lesbian she's, a woman who is dating a man right so by biological definition. Kate is right. So if she uses normal definitions, you know the ones we've been using for all of human history and Kate is correct, but she is also insensitive and cruel because then she think like I am right so instead, the media are purporting provide this view that an natural man, which means that Kate is straight so who's intolerant, is Kate, intolerance because Kate doesn't consider andean actual man, man at the end, intolerant because he doesn't consider Kate, natural Lesbian, which one is it Washington, Post cancer society is intolerant.

It's you, you reading the story, you we intolerant because we're looking at this, and we thought that this is a pretty binary question right and he is a man or Andy's woman. I mean there's no other choices here. There's no other voice on the board, Andy's manor, a man or woman by one standard. The crazy left me in same gender studies bizarro standard, and he is a man which means Kate is straight by the by laws, legal definition and is a woman which means case a lesbian. Those are the only two choices na. You thought that this was a logical, Koby, Ashi Maroo problem wrong. That you are William Dinner here, has found a way out of the Kobayashi Maru problem. His solution is you're, the bigot for reading the story and believing in logic and language, wait for it wait for it, okay, people who are now engaged to be married. There are no clear answers to this and he said no matter how much I want to separate my trans identity. From who I am. I can't I can't

credit for my relationship with Kate, because she's a queer woman, it's a daily dance. We navigate this tension is a daily reality for many queer couples who feel the way others perceive them is at odds with who they really are. That's the sentence right there right. It's a daily reality for queer couples who feel that the way others perceive them is at odds with it's. You you're not you're, standing enough, you with your logic in your language and your definitions, putting both Andy and Kate, who lead a happy life. If you would say Mult, Ai Gnaeus Lee agree that Kate is a lesbian and also the Andy is a man. How dare you, how dare you looser ridiculous and then the article talks about how Andy is quote? Unquote, passing but Andy isn't really passing because, and he is a man or handyman unclear, and he says I I want to be seen as a man. I don't want to have any sort of mark on me that says I'm trans, if I were more inclined to do that, Kate now probably have an easier time. Some people do feel like I need to represent the group

part of, but not me, I just want to blend, and then the Washington Post really drops the hammer again. It's about you right. So this bizarre situation that clearly exposes the flaws in gender studies. Thinking it's problem with you. Many Americans still have a hard time grasping the fact that gender and sexual orientation are independent from each other. A person's gender identity does not determine whom they will be attracted to or who will be attracted to them. Ca, you're, the bigot. Now again, this article is nothing to do with that sort of confusion at all at all right. But it's about you and your intolerance, Trans, gender and non binary. People identify as gender is different from those on their birth certificates, but, for example, I try engender man might be attracted only to women or only to men or both. It depends entirely on the person and when a person transitions, while in a relationship it doesn't necessarily change their partners. Sexual orientation, just be Kate, is no longer dating a woman, doesn't mean

she is no longer queer. Distinguishing between identities in the LGBT community has become increasingly complex as more categories for gender identities and sexual orientations have emerged. Many of I'm breaking with traditional non buying it with traditional binary notions and sexual have emerged, describe people who are attracted to frying pans under no that's sorry. Pan sexual have emerged to describe people who are attracted to a full spectrum of gender identities. It's a double edged sword says the Washington Post. Okay. So if your faith in your ability to understand human language has been under cut, that would be the point. That would be a point it's just all of this is insanity, but it doesn't

stop there because all of this is really in the end. This is designed to reduce all of life into subjective is um. It's designed to reduce life into all of all of life into subjective ism, once all of life is reduced to subjective ism, that the only true happiness can be found within because reason and logic about the window, because you really can't control your own behavior subjective ism is the only thing that counts. Well. If the only thing matters is your subjective pleasure, your subjective self definition, then you are going to identify as a member of a tribe with people who think like you, and then politics just becomes a question of rebel warfare. How does your tribe in power over another tribe, and that is exactly what politics is becoming because it used to be? You could have a conversation with somebody who disagreed now, conversations with people who disagree with you are considered for Boden they're, considered bad and wrong by the left. How do I know this? Well, tell you a brief story. So, a few weeks ago I was in a room with a with a dude who happens to I'm not gonna

name him, I'm not gonna name. The podcast have any very prominent on extremely popular left wing, podcast friendly guy right. We got to talking. We obviously disagree on wide variety of things, and I said to him: you know what we should do. We should do a crossover, podcast 'cause, your podcast is popular in my podcast is popular. You get huge audiences would be really interesting. It could show that conversation is still possible and he said to me your audience. We find that I said I know my audience would be fine with it, because my audience doesn't care if I have a conversation with somebody on the other side, in fact, when we my Sunday special every week, I have conversations with people on the other side for probably thirty five percent to forty five to forty percent of the time everybody Andrew Yang to Piers Morgan. I do it all the time, Larry Wilmore. We do a lot, I'm happy to have conversations with people on the other side of the aisle. He. What he said was my audience would kill me is my audience would not allow you in the room, they would kill me, and that is a that's correct. That's what politics has come down to, so why should I trust

a political system that allows that guy in his audience to dominate me? Why would I possibly be in favor of that and that's what a lot of folks on the radical left would like at this point, not a conversation, not a system of checks and balances. That requires a super majority of Americans or a heavy majority of Americans to agree to something to change the system which seems proper in a diverse republic. Now, instead, what they want is sheer power politics, and they want to indoctrinate your kids into all of this. And then there's an article at the at the Huffington Post that I think, is pretty telling a in these lines. Rimmel flower is my kid fluent in racism.

We're talking about the indoctrination of children into this particular belief system. Radical subjective is um, ah belief that american history is awful and evil a belief that we can't have conversations with each other that we have to change human language in order to mirror your your personal preferences. The article is that Huffington Post, the depository of all things stupid, does my three year old, has an uncanny ability to bust me on curse words, the whole ride home from school. He ignores me questions about his day dinner preferences, upcoming activities, but then sure is bleep. What did you say? Mommy? He asked sweetly. Oh, I was talking about a thing I stammer, no mommy. What did you say about that man in the parking lot he persists he's referring to when I expletives about a man blocking a busy parking lot I'll, but I'm far more concerned about the foul racist language he's going to encounter, I'm not talking about Trump's racist, tweets or comments. These crimes are the headline where I feel out of my depth as a parent. Is the insidious heavily biased storytelling that I won't always be able to interpret from my son the language of the news. It says

not merely that we're going to twist language now is that we're going to indoctrinate children in the twisting of language? She says when news stories describe Latinx asylum seekers as illegal aliens or refer to african american protesters seeking social justice as thugs. That becomes the hateful way that kids see Latinx an african american people, perhaps including themselves. And so just to get this straight, if you illegally immigrate to the United States- and you are not properly an asylum seeker which is the vast majority of people apply for asylum in the United States, then it's racist for you as an illegal immigrant and here's the example. This woman used you ready when the ninety ninety two LOS Angeles riots happen. I was thirteen years old living in LA suburb. I remember this. I was eight years old living in LA suburb. She says I was good to the tv along with my parents, my brothers and everyone else. I knew the lens for my experience, not the unjust acquittal of the four officers who beat Rodney King, no one on the who was talking about social justice. They were talking about looters and Ellen people burning down our city. Yes, because that's what the LA riots were,

literally people running out into the street bashing in store windows ceiling, tv and beating the living hell out of truckers who got caught in the middle of the area. Korean shop owners were perched out, on top of their stores, with rifles to protect their own property. Get the LA riots were a horror show you want to protest. The Rodney King verdict go for it now, with the LA riots were they were riots and a lot of the people taking part in them or people who are looking to steal a tv that is just the real. If the situation it was not in LA uprising, it was not a politically motivated quote. Unquote. Uprising against the authorities, if it were, would have been directed at the mayor's office, which is in downtown l a that is not what happened, but apparently, if you called the riots what they were, then this is an element of bigotry and racism, so we're we're Devol Ving into a society where you can't even have a common conversation which of course undermines the faith in the institutions, but then also you don't want the answer to tutions of checks and balances to stop you from beating up the other guy. So you want to get rid of the checks and balances you

institutions, the you can't trust unless you control them. This is how you get to tear any pretty quickly. This has got to people who do want to have a conversation with anybody living in the same country with them on the other side, but desperately want to cram down at their policy preferences on people on the other side of the aisle, and it's this is not going to end well in any way. Shape or form is going to get worse and worse unless people come back to the table and start having conversations again, but I don't think those conversations are possible in in our current political climate. That's for damn sure. Okay, when do a quick thing. I like in a quick thing that I hate. So I think that I like, I have to admit I like really hard at this, so Bernie Sanders apparently was speaking in Louisville Kentucky. We stop by the home it Muhammad Ali Museum Alley. Of course, the greatest had way back

all time and Bernie Sanders decided that he was going to take a turn on the speed bag. Now, as somebody who exercise frequently, I am not a person who is great with the speed bag in the gym, but you actually have to practice with it. Bernie Sanders apparently thought that he could get away with this. It did not go well for him. You should subscribe to just to see the squib uh he's eighty years old, he hits the speed bag. It comes back at him and it nearly knocked him out nearly gets K Oed by the speed bag, which makes sense because if the speed bag is logic and is getting Kot hits hits the logic. The logic comes right back at him and he gets the wild overreaction. Bernie Sanders almost breaking a hip here that some pretty spectacular stuff. I would say that that Bernie Sanders you that that is the only in his worse than punching a speed bag, apparently than jabbing at a speed bag like an octogenarian cause. He is one is his take on

China, so this transitions into things I hate, but we'll just do it right here. Here's Bernie Sanders yesterday, testing the China has done a wonderful job. Alleviating poverty is, though, communism and socialism are responsible for that, and not the market. Capitalism, the free market, capitalism that the chinese authoritarian regime has taken part in at least partially. It was that embrace of open markets and free trade made that allowed China to raise a billion people from poverty in thirty years, because before that, China had a a way of alleviating power that was killed, forty million people in the great leap forward. I think China is a country that is moving. Unfortunately, in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions, we would have hoped that they would move toward a democratic, more democratic form of government and moving in the opposite direction. But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and its leadership is, if I'm not mistaken, they have made more progress

in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, good for them in the land. Bernie Sanders that you loved him Cem. Some communist authoritarianism again there's only one problem, which is that the reason that poverty was alleviated in China has nothing to do with the communism and everything do with embracing free trade that literally everything to do with opening itself up to different markets and embracing in capitalist commerce. That's what Deng is Moi ce. It was the the emphasis on practicality. The over communist doctrine now she's should ping is trying to reverse a lot of that stuff. Okay time for a quick thing that I hate. Speaking of the media, undercutting its own credibility. There is something deeply musing about Chris Matthews on MSNBC, complaining about the dirtbag politics, dirtball politics of digging up people's old tweets and using them against them. Pretty sure this is what MSNBC does, at the behest of medium matters, on a near daily basis, because Maggie is that he's just terrible people digging up stuff on

we're going to find out, may not come here my herald, but every morning raylan in here, don't even prepare for the show it's kind of just jabber on about random things, and what are they gonna find you remember that time I had a tingle up my leg about Obama. I hope they don't find what I was doing backstage as weird, but let's talk about the dirtbag politics of digging a bad stuff on people which we do Daly. Let's go dirtball politics when he catch this Trump a lie: Alliser out unleashing dogs on journalist now pulling together, Po Research and compiling dossiers, Apotek Social, embarrassing, social media posts on an attempt to try to discredit, intimidate whatever quarters he wants to media, to stop reporting on him objectively, so they're going out people's families, people work for them in their corporate organizations, anything to stop people reporting on him. This is exactly what Joe Mccarthy did exactly what

John Mccarthy didn't. We do it also, but it's bad when they do it, it's really really good and we just 'cause we're speaking truth to power. This is very reminiscent of when folks on the left decides to redefine racism, so that racism isn't just bigotry against another racial group. It is bigotry combined with power. This allows the left to redefine racism, so that, if somebody who is black is racist, they're, not racist, because they don't have power right, so they'll have a mark into being Anti semitic, she's, not actually a bigot, because she doesn't have enough endemic institutional power right that that that the very much like this in the media saying very bad when they do it very good and redo it. It's pretty spectacular if I decide to dig up peoples all tweets and that's just something- I do well very high, but if you dig up an old tweet now how much I wanted to massage Barack Obama's foot, that's all good for me. I don't like you very much. If an undercut my objective journalism subject to pop, get good stuff media, we we definitely will continue to try. You get one more quick thing that I hate the bait or work

best rating again, that if you ask a democratic question about abortion, things get supremely ugly, the fellow who actually asked me to work. This question called in to our radio show yesterday and told us this story, pretty simple question: Beto blows it like a like a like a marijuana. Like a their area like, I do here beta going for it. My question is this: I was born September, eighth, one thousand nine hundred and eighty nine, and I want to know if you think on September, seventh, eighty nine, my life had no value. Of course. I don't think that and of course I'm glad that you're here, but you you referenced my answer in Ohio, and it remains the same that this is a decision that neither you nor I nor the United States government should be making that's a decision for the woman

to make. So, in other words, I'm glad you're here, but also, if your mom and killed you the day before you were born. Well, then I guess you wouldn't be here asking me this awkward question. Would you my life a lot easier by the way? I think what we've all learned from this particular segment is. I really need to get up on my drug vernacular because it is not straw. It will be later will be here later today with two additional hours of content. Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow, I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and if you want to help spread the word. Please of us a five star review and tell your friends to subscribe to were available, go on Apple podcast, Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts, also be sure to check out the other daily wire podcasts, including the Andrew Klavan, show the Michael Mols Show and them at WAL show. Thanks for listening, the bench

superhero show is produced by Robert Stirling directed by MIKE Joyner executive producer, Jeremy, boring senior producer, Jonathan, hey are supervising, producer is Mathis Glover and our technical producer is Austin Stevens edited by Adam Sai events. Audio is mixed by MIKE Coral mean a hair, and makeup is by just over a production assistant Nick. She, the Ben Shapiro Show, is a daily wire production, copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen. If you want to delve the depths of leftist madness head on over to the Michael Knowles Show where we examine, what's really going on beneath the surface of our politics and Baskin, simple joys of being right.