Ben Shapiro (41:00)
Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. They just can't help themselves. They just can't help themselves. It's truly an unbelievable thing, like an amazing thing. There've been a lot of people on the left who've been trying to comp the murder of Charlie Kirk with the murders of Melissa and Mark Portman and the shootings of John Yvette Hoffman and the attempted shooting of Hope Hoffman by a shooter who thought apparently that Tim Walls was giving him a covert order to murder these people. They claimed that he was a right winger who is trying to murder the Minnesota House of Representatives speaker emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, who were murdered. And there's been an attempt to liken those two things. Now, putting aside the nature of the shooters, and again, there's a pretty big difference between the shooter of Charlie Kirk, who is clearly motivated, a left wing ideology. Yes, that is true. From all available evidence, he considered Charlie Kirk to be hateful specifically because of Charlie's views on LGBT issues, particularly trans issues, and the shooter of the Minnesota state legislators who, you know, again, the evidence tends to show was mentally ill in a pretty severe way. We had a bunch of no Kings, a bunch of no kings flyers in his car and such. Putting aside all of that, one of the giant differences is that was there anybody on the right who felt the necessity to go after the Minnesota legislators with regard to their politics after the murder? What was that a big thing that we saw people saying? Well, you know, sure, it was terrible. They were murdered, but, you know, we do have to remember the kinds of things they were pushing politically. Was that. Was that really a thing that happened? Because if so, I sort of missed it. And yet huge numbers of Democrats feel the necessity to say that about Charlie Kirk. The legacy that Charlie Kirk leaves behind. Well, yes, he was partisan, yes, he was political. But in death, there is a thing that happens. It's just a reality. People get flattened down into two dimensional figures. Martin Luther King Jr. Had a lot of views on a lot of different issues, many of which were pretty far to the left. He had A very checkered personal life. But the thing that people remember Martin Luther King for was the basic stance that he took against the racial separatism of Malcolm X on the one hand, and against the segregationism of the Jim Crow south on the other, saying that people should be treated based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. In death, people get sort of reduced to their barest essentials in terms of their legacy. Charlie has been reduced to his barest essentials, or maybe elevated to his barest essentials, if that's the way we want to look at it. And his barest essentials were a person who believed in free debate and a person who believed in his faith and all that entailed. Those are the things that people are going to remember 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 100 years from now about Charlie Clark. All the politics are going to be put by the wayside. And what people are going to remember about Charlie is that Charlie was a person who went out there and engaged in open dialogue with people who disagreed with him and was murdered while doing it. Because the manner of his death is not separate from the reasons that he will be remembered. He wasn't shot coming out of a grocery store. He was shot engaging in public debate with college students good naturedly and then he was dead. And you can't separate that from the legacy that he leaves behind. And the same thing is true with regard to his faith. Obviously the entire memorial yesterday was about Charlie's individual faith and his willingness to spread it, to somehow do the bad old tweets routine that you're seeing from some Democrats here. Not only is it a bad faith misrepresentation of who Charlie was, it is ugly and stupid and does not connect with the reality that most people are feeling about Charlie Kirk. It also doesn't connect with the reality that there has been a radical uptick in violence coming from the left over the course of the last three days alone. We have two violent incidents involving people who are clearly apparently motivated by left wing ideology. One in Sacramento. Apparently. According to the New York Times, a Sacramento man was arrested and charged on Saturday morning after officials said he shot at a local television news station in the city the previous day. Although the building was occupied at the time, nobody was hit by the gunfire, the San Sacramento Police Department said, describing the attacks of drive by shooting. Apparently the suspect, who's 64, fired at least three rounds through a window of a local ABC affiliate. Apparently the the attack came one day after demonstrators rallied in front of the station after, after their decision to pull Jimmy Kimmel's late night talk show off the air. And the evidence seems to suggest that the gunman was acting ideologically. So there's that case. And then over the weekend another shooting took place. This one took place in New Hampshire at a country club called Sky Meadow Country Club in Nashua. A 59 year old man named Robert de Cheseray was killed by a 23 year old who used to work at the facility. Several others were shot. More than 100 people were at the club at the time, many for a wedding. Apparently the shooter yelled the great call of the left these days. Free Palestine while shooting innocent people. The omni clause of the left. Now of course, the Free Palestine cry has become the sort of apex line of the far left because it combines in all aspects the scavenger mentality, siding with a group of people who, who have either elected, selected or been governed by terrorists, literally the entirety of their existence as a, as an apparent separate people engaged in a war with terrorists at their head, holding contemporaneously hostages. And that's the fault of the West. In Israel, according to the Free Palestine crew, that was a violent incident. It will be buried because the person was shouting Free Palestine. Which of course is exactly what the shooter shouted as he shot to death to Israeli embassy workers just a few months back on the streets of Washington D.C. that's also what the Molotov cocktail thrower who murdered an elderly woman in Colorado was shouting when he threw Molotov cocktails at a bunch of people who are out there doing a, a protest in favor of the release of the hostages. Free Palestine has become the great cry of the radical left. And yes, it is enmeshed with violence. Yes, it is. As we discussed last week, the permission structures for violence very much exist on the left. There's just no question that is the case. And they need to be extirpated. I fear they will be only exacerbated by a left that is deeply ensconced in these scavenger viewpoints. You know, if we are to have a conciliatory dialogue about the country, it's going to take more than just saying political violence is bad. It's going to be about saying that any movement that is rooted effectively in grievance culture and conspiracy theory needs to be rooted out. It should not be humored by anyone. It should not. Alrighty. Meanwhile, in other news, things are happening around the world. Speaking of the scavenger mentality, in big foreign policy news, the uk, Australia and Canada all decided yesterday that they were going to formally recognize a Palestinian state, which is kind of an amazing thing considering that there is no Palestinian state, nor will there be be one. It's like recognizing a state of Narnia, except if Narnia were governed by radical Islamic terrorists who are currently holding a bunch of Jewish hostages. The moral blindness and suicidal empathy that it takes for western countries to look at a terror governed hellhole and say maybe we should call that a state and try to give it extra powers. That's crazy. By the way, it's always, you want to talk about fancy land. All three leaders said in recognizing a state of Palestine, there will have to be a government that is not run by Hamas. Oh, you don't say? So you're going to do that? Well, Hamas is still in charge of Gaza and you're going to pretend the Palestinian Authority, which is a joke of an organization, it also is a terrorist organization. By the way, they literally still pay terrorists who kill Jews. They give them like lifelong stipends to the families of terrorists who kill Jews. The Palestinian Authority, wildly unpopular in the Palestinian areas of the so called West Bank. What? That's going to be the government. So they've recognized a state that has no borders, no government and no responsibility for its own citizens. Congrats. They did this in the middle of an attempt by Israel to end the war. Every time Israel attempts to put enough pressure on Hamas to get the hostages out and end the war, leftists in the west immediately step in to to prevent it. Emmanuel Macron did this a few months back. There was a deal that was on the table for Hamas to go into exile apparently and to release the hostages. And that's when Emmanuel Macron decided it would be an amazing time to give Hamas the prize of announcing a Palestinian state. British Prime Minister Keira Starmer, a fool if ever there was one, said today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis and a two state solution. The United Kingdom formally recognizes the state of Palestine. How is that a two state solution? A two state solution has to be negotiated between the two sides. You simply recognizing a concept does not make the concept effectuated in any material or useful way and it doesn't revive the hope of peace for anybody. Hamas immediately celebrated, by the way. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement, we will have to fight both at the UN and in all other arenas against the false propaganda against us and the calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state that will endanger our existence and constitute an absurd reward. For terrorism. The international community will hear from us on this matter in the coming days. And he said that this is a prize, which of course it is. The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry said this declaration does not promote peace. On the contrary, it further destabilizes the region and undermines the chances of achieving a peaceful solution in the future. Hamas, of course, applauded it. I have a general rule of thumb. If Hamas is applauding you, you're doing it wrong. As a general rule of thumb, it applies to pretty much everything. If Hamas likes it, you're doing it wrong. Everything from statements of recognition of a state of Palestine to public speeches. If Hamas is approving of you, you're doing something morally egregious. Meanwhile, in other news closer to home, apparently there is a deal to keep TikTok operational but divest it of its Chinese ownership. We can only hope that that amounts to also a rejiggering of its perverse algorithm, which pushes some of the worst material available on the American public. According to the Wall Street Journal, under the new agreement, a new entity would be created to run TikTok in the United States. A consortium of new investors, including private equity firm Silver Lake and Oracle, would own roughly half. Existing investors, like the trading firm Susquehanna International would hold about 30%. ByteDance, which is the Chinese owned company, would dip below 20%. Apparently, a new version of TikTok's content recommendation algorithm would be retrained and crucially, users would be able to access the service via the same app they have been using. Now, if that's true, if there is a new version of the content recommendation algorithm that doesn't elevate Chinese propaganda, that would be a win for the world. That would certainly be a good thing. The US Government is expected to receive a multi billion dollar fee for facilitating the agreement. The deal apparently is not quite done yet. President Trump's extending the deadline for TikTok to reach a deal by an additional 120 days. I'm not sure why it needs to take 120 days. I mean this is a violation right now of congressional law. TikTok should have just been banned a while ago. I'm not sure why we are now in September. Another 120 days takes us well past the end of the year. This all should be accelerated radically like fast, because TikTok is in fact a weapon for people who hate the United States and the informational wars, without a doubt. Meanwhile, on the economic front, the President is now suggesting a new $100,000 fee for H1B visas. Now H1B visas are a way of importing people who tend to be pretty well qualified for jobs. H1B visas are applied for by the employers. They bring in useful labor into the United States. It's the main pathway to the United States for highly skilled foreign workers. There's a lot of controversy on the right over H1B visas that broke out earlier this year, with some parts of the administration, like Elon Musk, arguing in favor of H1B visas. Others like Peter Navarro, arguing very much against H1B visas. Now, speaking of H1B visas, I was wondering how many H1B visas are actually granted every year because it's treated as such a major issue in the United States. So my sponsors over at Comet, a new web browser, by perplexity, that was the place to search. I asked how many H1B visas are issued each year and in what industries. Each year the United States issues a maximum of 85,000 new H1B visas. 65,000 through the regular cap. An additional 20,000 for applicants with US advanced degrees, with hundreds of thousands of applications subject to a lottery due to high demand. So which industries? According to Comet, Professional, scientific and technical Services. That's the top industry. It accounts for about half of all new annual approvals. Educational services, so that'd be like universities, colleges, related organizations. And manufacturing represents about 10%. The H1B visas, again, that program sometimes is treated in sort of the public debate as though it's like millions of people. It is not in fact, millions of people. It's a pretty small select group. You theoretically could make it somewhat smaller. But at some point you do risk not being able to bring into the country actual assets to the American economy. Now H1B says can certainly be used improperly as a way of simply lowering labor costs. But it's also true that H1B visas can be a way of bringing in people who are innovative to become American citizens. And one of the great things about America, historically speaking, when we are not doing idiotic waves of unassimilated mass immigration, one of the great things about America is that it is a magnet for people who are innovative and creative. There's a reason the American economy soars. And one of those reasons is that magnet like ability to draw the best available from the global pool of labor and intellect. Ending that seems to me to be bad policy. Maybe there are changes that can be made to the H1B program to prevent as much fraud as occurs. But if the Idea is a $100,000 fee for every visa, that is a that is a giant fee that basically ends H1B programs, I would imagine, or at least virtually all them. A large number of the H1B visas, according to the Wall Street Journal, issued to workers at for profit companies are in stem. Many go into computer related jobs at some of the largest US tech companies. Universities and nonprofits also use that H1B program to hire foreign born professors and other workers. And again, we should screen all these people for ideology. They should only come in if they're going to be a benefit to the United States. Right now, applicants for the H1B visa have to pay a small fee to enter a lottery system. The winners of that lottery pay a larger fee alongside their applications for vetting. Under the new system, the administration says that only the best high skilled workers will be worth the price, leaving more opportunities for US based labor. And there's no question that at the very least this is going to increase the price of labor, obviously. But the real question is whether that fee is so high that it essentially cuts off a pathway to success for exactly the kind of immigrants we actually do want coming into the country. We'll have to see how the law is actually applied. Meanwhile, the President of the United States had a very odd moment over the weekend, to say the least. He put a statement out on Truth Social openly telling Pam Bondi to figure out a way to prosecute James Comey, Adam Schiff and Letitia James. He apparently thought it was an email, maybe because he put it down on Truth Social and then he quickly deleted it. He put out the statement, quote, Pam, I've reviewed over 30 statements imposed saying that essentially same old story as last time. All talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Schiff, D. Schiff, Leticia, they're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done, he said. We almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. attorney in Virginia with a really bad Republican past. A woke rhino who is never going to do his job. That's why two of the worst Dem senators pushed him so hard, even lied to the media and said he quit and that we had no case. No, I fired him and there is a great case and many lawyers and legal pundits say so. And then President Trump said that Bondi could not delay prosecutorial action, note unquote. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeach me twice, indicted me five times over. Nothing. Justice must be served now. Shortly thereafter, he posted something else praising Pam Bondi. Suffice it to say that it should be the job of prosecutors to determine whether somebody has committed a crime, not the president of the United States. And yes, of course, I totally understand that President Trump was targeted by the Department of Justice under Joe Biden. That is absolutely true. It's absolutely true. But one of the things that I think we should avoid for the future of our politics, one of the things we really should avoid is the endless spiral where we say, because they did that, now I'm going to do more of that thing, because then the other side gets in and they say, because they did that, I'm going to do more of that thing. The doj. If you want to restore the credibility of the DOJ as a functional institution, you are going to, at some point need to actually allow the DOJ to simply prosecute people who commit crimes, rather than finding the people and then finding the crime. All right, folks, as the show continues, we're going to jump into the mailbag. Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become a member. Use Coach Pira. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.
