Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 5, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:06:26

Facebook's Anti-Free Speech Rulers Maintain Their Trump Ban | Ep. 1250

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Facebook Oversight Board says that the company was right to ban President Trump, war breaks out inside the House GOP over Liz Cheney, and the Democratic Party continues to promote economic, immigration, and COVID idiocy.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Thousands of my listeners have already secured their internet.
	Join them at ExpressVPN.com.
	Slash Ben will get to all the news in just one moment.
	First, a quick reminder, we are now spending more money than has ever been seen by God or man, and this is going to lead to inflation.
	I mean, even Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, she basically acknowledged inflation is probably on its way.
	So, if you're looking at the value of your bank account and thinking, well, through no fault of my own, this is going to be worth less tomorrow than it is today, perhaps you might think about diversifying into precious metals, which is the greatest hedge against inflation and uncertainty in the markets.
	If all your investments are tied to dollars, you're sitting on a ticking time bomb.
	Do what I do.
	Invest a portion of your savings into gold and silver.
	Birch Gold Group.
	Those are the people I trust.
	You can trust them to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
	That's right.
	Through a little-known tax loophole, you can convert your retirement savings that are tied to the stock market into an IRA backed by precious metals.
	That would be your hedge against inflation.
	I'm not saying take every dollar you have, take it out of the stock market or real estate and toss it into gold and silver.
	I'm saying you need a little bit of your money in precious metals.
	Text Ben to 474747 for your free information kit on Precious Metals IRA, or to speak with a Birchgold representative today.
	With 10,000 customers, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, and countless five-star reviews, Birchgold can help you too.
	Text Ben to 474747.
	Invest in gold before it is too late.
	Alrighty, so the big news today is that Facebook has decided, hey, yeah, it turns out that when we banned Trump on January 6th, we were right.
	We were right all along.
	So here's what you have to know.
	Facebook, last year, set up what they called their Facebook Oversight Board.
	And the Facebook Oversight Board was supposed to be this sort of outside independent group that Facebook did not control, that was supposed to make decisions.
	It was sort of like an appellate court, that if somebody appealed a decision made by Facebook, it's either it's algorithms or it's employees, that you could appeal to this Facebook court, and the Facebook court would make a decision as to whether that person should have been suspended or banned or something.
	And the constituency of the court was already weird, right?
	The Oversight Board was already strange because it included a bunch of Various sort of advocates from a variety of countries, which, first of all, doesn't make any sense because the United States has the most open free speech standards on planet Earth.
	We are more pro-free speech in the United States than they are in Canada or than they are in the UK, certainly in the rest of Europe.
	And yet, the Oversight Board was made up of a bunch of people who don't even live in America.
	There is like one third of the board was made up of Americans and the other two thirds were people who are not American.
	Then it was made up of a bunch of people who are politically active.
	It was not made politically diverse.
	There were like a couple of people who were on the Facebook oversight board who could theoretically be considered conservative, and then the rest were not.
	So they created basically an oversight board that was supposed to act as what sounded more like a PR agency for Facebook.
	It would relieve Facebook of the responsibility.
	They could always just say, listen, it wasn't us.
	It was this independent body over here who decided that we were right or wrong to do what we did.
	And the truth is that Facebook has always sort of wanted to do this.
	This is why Facebook has said, we'd rather that you guys regulate us in government than that we regulate ourselves because they don't want the responsibility for this.
	They just want to make money, right?
	There's never been any clear standard applied either by Facebook within or by any party without.
	So they've been searching for some way to shift responsibility from the decision makers at Facebook to some other body so they can just go about their business and do the social media-ing and not have to worry about what standards of free speech ought to apply or ought not to apply.
	Now, that is a shift in Facebook's perspective from the past.
	If you go back to 2010, if you go back to 2014, Mark Zuckerberg used to make statements routinely about how the goal here was to allow more speech, not less.
	In 2019, he gave an excellent speech at Georgetown University in which he said the messiness of free speech is part and parcel of the right of free speech.
	And we can either have a less messy First Amendment and more tyranny, or we can have a more messy First Amendment and less tyranny, which is exactly correct.
	His standards on free speech sounded very much like the normal constitutional standards of free speech.
	But then, there was pressure.
	The pressure that was applied to Facebook in the aftermath of the 2016 election, particularly by Democrats, was quite severe.
	Before 2016, Facebook was seen as the wave of the future by the Democrats.
	They loved Facebook, right?
	Barack Obama knew how to use it.
	I think the Obama campaign had done great with it in 2012.
	They were all geniuses over there.
	And then, there was the Cambridge Analytica non-scandal, which really was not a scandal.
	And the media blew it up.
	They were looking for an excuse as to why Hillary Clinton had lost the 2016 election.
	And the excuse they came up with was not that she was the world's crappiest candidate, awful, ran a terrible campaign, and nobody liked her.
	Their excuse was, simultaneously, it was the Russians, and also it was social media.
	If social media had just cracked down on the misinformation from Republicans and the disinformation from the Russians, Hillary Clinton certainly would have won, right?
	This was the lie that was told, as opposed to, you know, Hillary Clinton was just a crappy candidate, which happens to be the truth.
	And the social media companies, because they are run by people who generally vote Democrat, they were resonant to this.
	They were like, oh, well, maybe that's true.
	Maybe we need to start cracking down on speech.
	Maybe we need, instead of just worrying about upholding people's power to speak, we need to cultivate conversations.
	We need conversations that foster better public dialogue, right?
	Which means that they were now going to insert themselves into the business of deciding what content could go up and what content could go down.
	Now, this was not really their job.
	The basis for social media has always been in the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
	That Section 230 was specifically designed in order to allow companies like Facebook or like YouTube to create platforms for people to post their own content without the company gaining the liability of the content.
	If you post some sort of defamatory material on Facebook, Facebook is not responsible for the defamatory material.
	You are responsible!
	For the defamatory material.
	That was the purpose of the Communications Decency Act.
	And it was meant to foster more conversation.
	Then, because there were some court decisions that suggested that if a website started taking down comments that were obscene and lewd they would then be held liable for the other comments that they left up.
	That's when Section 230 was added.
	Section 230 said that there could be some cultivation of the comments sections, right?
	That these big companies didn't become publishers just by virtue of taking down pornographic material in the comment sections or spamming material in the comment sections.
	So there's this catch-all provision in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that says that you don't really need an excuse to take down material.
	So an act that was designed to foster free conversation was then used post-2016 by the social media tech bros in order to stop conversation.
	Because now the idea was, well, you know, it says in Section 230 we can take down whatever we want and we're not liable for the stuff that we leave up.
	So they actually flipped the purpose of Section 230 on its head.
	And you started to see the social media companies get much more heavily invested in censorship, in banning people.
	You'd see these coordinated censorship campaigns, where people who I personally think are terrible, but certainly had not violated rules, started to see their accounts just disappear.
	I started to see people who I think are just garbage.
	You know, the Alex Joneses, the Milo Yiannopouloses of the world.
	They would lose their account, but I would say, like, why are they losing their account?
	Even though they personally target me, I can take it.
	I mean, that's free speech.
	That's the way things are supposed to work.
	But these social media companies rarely gave any sort of consistent excuse because they would leave up Louis Farrakhan and Ayatollah Khamenei, and they would take down Milo Yiannopoulos or Alex Jones.
	And then finally, they got to President Trump on January 6th.
	We'll get to this in just one second.
	First, Let us talk about the simple fact that if you want a great T-shirt, there's one place to go.
	I'm talking about Cuts.
	It's not just T-shirts, it's polos.
	It is all sorts of great stuff.
	Their shirts are the best.
	Cuts clothing shirts, they are the best.
	They've taken the classic men's fashion staple, the plain tee.
	They've refined it.
	They've combined premium quality with a minimalist aesthetic.
	They've got shirts, polos, hoodies, crew sweatshirts.
	They're all made for the man who works hard, plays hard, never settles for less, all in the sport of business.
	I literally threw out all my other T-shirts.
	Cuts is just that comfortable.
	It fits just that well.
	It's the perfect t-shirt.
	Accomplished.
	Next, Cuts set out to create fabric uniquely engineered for each clothing style.
	Consider the new Cuts hoodie.
	They developed Hyperloop French Terry fabric, a textile that is temperature controlled and ageless.
	You never need to take it off, and you won't want to.
	Or try their wrinkle-free Pika Polo, a design that keeps you fitted for the office, the golf course, at home, the gym, or the next date.
	It's not just a lifestyle.
	It's not just clothing.
	It's office leisure apparel for the sport of business.
	Get 15% off your first order by heading on over to CutsClothing.com slash Shapiro.
	That is CutsClothing.com slash Shapiro for 15% off the only shirt worth wearing.
	Okay, so.
	As these social media companies, particularly Twitter, started to crack down more and more heavily on content, there was additional pressure brought on places like Facebook to crack down additionally on content.
	And Democrats started openly threatening places like Facebook.
	Senator Dianne Feinstein would call in Zuckerberg in front of her and say things like, if you don't crack down on content, well, then we will.
	Which, of course, they can't because of this thing called the First Amendment.
	But the threat has been there from Democrats for a very long time.
	Either the social media companies Would become tools of the Democratic Party or they would meet the heavy hand of government.
	This was the threat because here's the thing about social media.
	What social media actually did in effect is it allowed alternative media like the Daily Wire to flourish.
	I'm very grateful for the presence of Facebook because otherwise I couldn't get my material to you.
	And the reality is that these giant social media companies blew up the monopoly that had been held heretofore by the giant establishment media companies.
	These establishment media companies and the Democrats then got angry.
	They didn't like the fact that there were so many alternative sources of media that were capable of reaching the American people directly.
	So then they started trying to blackmail these companies saying, okay, you need to shut down all these alternative sources of media and then we will let you thrive.
	And this is why you see people like Nancy Pelosi Again, the tech bros are all Democrats.
	This is why you see people like Nancy Pelosi saying, you know, I don't really like Facebook.
	I'm not a big fan of Facebook.
	They have had a business model that is a business model built on making money on misrepresentations.
	So for a long time, they made money on Russian money, coming in and distorting our elections and saying, oh, we didn't know it was Russian.
	Well, they're Ruples, OK?
	So I'm not, again, a big fan of those.
	If they're making a business decision, then That's one thing.
	If they're making a values decision, then that would be another.
	Okay, so that is Nancy Pelosi openly urging Facebook to ban Trump.
	She was talking about this yesterday.
	So Democrats decided that social media are only their friends when they do what they want.
	So Facebook decided, you know what, I don't want to be in the middle of this.
	Zuckerberg said, I don't want to be in the middle of this.
	Facebook's board basically said, we'll create this outside oversight board and you want to blame somebody, blame them.
	In the same way that the legislature of the United States has basically set up all these executive branch agencies to do the regulations so they don't get blamed.
	Same thing Facebook's doing.
	They're like, we're going to kick the can down the road.
	We don't want to own this thing.
	So we've set up this oversight board filled with people who are not American, most of whom are not in compliance with sort of basic American standards of free speech, and they'll do the work.
	Okay, so fine.
	So January 6th happens and Donald Trump tweets out a bunch of stuff and puts out a bunch of Facebook posts.
	None of them explicitly violate Facebook's rules.
	It is very difficult to see how Donald Trump's posts, many of which I think are really bad, actually violate Facebook's rules.
	There is way worse material on Facebook than anything that Trump put out on January 6th, pretty clearly.
	But Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, they all decided in coordination, we're going to take Trump off the internet.
	Which is deeply dangerous.
	He was the sitting president of the United States.
	That's deeply dangerous stuff.
	You now have the social media bros deplatforming the sitting president of the United States because he said stuff that doesn't explicitly even violate their policies.
	So they did that on January 6th, and Trump has just disappeared.
	And if you're a conservative, you're thinking, okay, if they can do that to the president of the United States, they can certainly do that to me.
	Like, I haven't violated policies either, but Trump really kind of didn't.
	I may not say things that are as inflammatory as Trump does, but that's a matter of arbitrary kind of decision-making.
	There are people at Facebook who hate my guts, there are people at YouTube who hate my guts, and Twitter who hate my guts.
	They could take me down at any time.
	And then, the same time that that happened, Parler, which was sort of the alternative, Was taken offline by Amazon Web Services.
	So it became, OK, well, you know what, conservatives, you don't like how we run our places here.
	Well, go build your own.
	So somebody built Parler as an alternative to Twitter.
	And then after January 6th, Parler is completely taken off the Internet by Amazon Web Services.
	Okay, so the social media companies just have too much control over American life, which brings us to the Facebook Oversight Board.
	So, if the Facebook Oversight Board had done the right thing here, what they would have said is, Trump, we don't like anything you said, he shouldn't have been banned.
	And certainly, even if he had been banned, he shouldn't have been banned indefinitely, and he should be back already.
	Instead, Facebook's Oversight Board found today, and they released a decision.
	And their decision is, Facebook was right to ban Trump at the time, And while they cannot suspend Trump indefinitely, they need to, you know, re-meet on this thing in six months.
	So, all the way until the middle of June, late June, then they probably have to reconsider about Trump.
	Or maybe they don't!
	Who the hell knows?
	We'll get to this in just one second, the Facebook decision, because it really is a fairly absurd decision on nearly every level.
	First, let us talk about your sleep quality.
	So the reality is that if you got kids, they're waking up at night, or maybe you just have to get up early for work in the morning, or you went to bed late, whatever it is, you need your sleep.
	And the best way to sleep is to sleep on a great mattress that is made just for you, which is what Helix Sleep does.
	Helix Sleep has a quiz.
	It takes just two minutes to complete and matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	Why would you buy a mattress made for someone else?
	With Helix, you're getting a mattress you know will be perfect for the way you sleep.
	Everybody's unique.
	Helix knows that.
	They have several different mattress models to choose from.
	They have soft, medium, and firm mattresses.
	Mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot.
	Even a Helix Plus mattress for plus-sized folks.
	It's been awesome getting unboxing videos from you.
	When we got our Helix Sleep mattress, it was really cool.
	You just kind of unwrap it and it inflates in front of you.
	You pop it on the bed, you're good to go.
	It's super simple.
	Just go to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	They will match you to a customized mattress that'll give you the best sleep of your life.
	They've got a 10-year warranty.
	You get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix is offering up to 200 bucks off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners at helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	That is helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so.
	The Oversight Board has finally released its long-awaited decision.
	Here's what they say.
	The Board has upheld Facebook's decision on January 7, 2021 to restrict then-President Donald Trump's access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account.
	However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension.
	Facebook's normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.
	The board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform.
	Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision.
	The board also made policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression.
	It won't.
	Alright, so here's what they say about the case.
	And that's their decision.
	Their decision is, you're right to ban Trump.
	Also, you can't do it indefinitely.
	Also, we have no standard for when he has to be let back.
	So, thank you for that.
	Here's what they say about the case.
	They say elections are a crucial part of democracy.
	On January 6th, during the counting of the 2020 electoral votes, a mob forcibly entered the Capitol building in Washington, D.C.
	This violence threatened the constitutional process.
	Five people died and many more were injured during these events.
	Then President Donald Trump posted two pieces of content.
	At 4.21 Eastern Standard Time, as the riot continued, Trump posted a video on Facebook and Instagram.
	I know your pain.
	I know you're hurt.
	We had an election that was stolen from us.
	It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now.
	We have to have peace.
	We have to have law and order.
	We have to respect our great people in law and order.
	We don't want anybody hurt.
	It's a very tough period of time.
	There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country.
	This is a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people.
	We have to have peace, so go home.
	We love you.
	You're very special.
	You've seen what happens.
	You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil.
	I know how you feel, but go home and go in peace.
	Okay, so, I said at the time, I'm not a big fan of that video, because that video says two conflicting things.
	One is, go home, go in peace, and also, everything you're super pissed about, you ought to be super duper pissed about.
	And the system has completely failed you.
	But also go home.
	Right, so it's conflicting.
	Did it violate Facebook's content standards?
	How?
	Really, like, how?
	At 5.41 Eastern Standard Time, Facebook removed this post for violating its community standard on dangerous individuals and organizations.
	At 6.07 Eastern Standard Time, as police were securing the Capitol, Trump posted a written statement on Facebook.
	Again, there's that conflicting message.
	and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly unfairly treated for so long.
	Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever.
	Again, there's that conflicting message.
	Same message. Okay. At 6 15, 6 p.m. 15 p.m.
	Eastern Standard Time, Facebook removed this post for violating its community standard on dangerous individuals and organizations, and then it blocked Trump from posting on Facebook.
	And then Facebook extended the block indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.
	On January 20th, Trump ceased to be president.
	On January 21st, Facebook announced it had referred this case to the board.
	So here are their findings.
	They say, the board found that the two posts by Trump on January 6th severely violated Facebook's community standards and Instagram community guidelines.
	We love you, you're very special in the first post.
	And great patriots and remember this day forever in the second post, violated Facebook's rules prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.
	Okay, here is where you start going a little mad with the Facebook standards.
	How many members of the media said that rioters and looters, even though they shouldn't riot, even though they shouldn't loot, are good people?
	How many said these are people who are justly aggrieved at the situation in the United States?
	You had CNN hosts who said this.
	You had MSNBC hosts who said this.
	You had politicians who said this.
	You had Kamala Harris actively promoting bailout funds for people who were arrested for rioting and looting.
	So in what way do those people get to say, but Trump has to go?
	The question isn't just whether Trump violated the standard.
	The question is whether this standard even exists.
	And the answer is no, it clearly does not exist.
	It was implemented and snapped into place with regard to Trump.
	It was left completely irrelevant for months on end while people rampaged through American cities, resulting in dozens of deaths, $2 billion in property damage, the most damaging riots in American history.
	Politicians, media members, commentators came out and defended the people who were doing the rioting and looting.
	Were any of those people banned from Facebook or even suspended indefinitely?
	The board found that in maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible.
	Okay, so now, if you're going to blame Trump for creating a serious risk of violence through creating an environment, how about the entire media that has claimed that police are systemically racist, America is systemically racist, and all of the injustices of the criminal justice system cannot be corrected?
	Because it is buried deep in the roots of all of America's institutions.
	Again, these are not standards.
	A double standard is not a standard.
	It is a non-standard.
	It doesn't exist.
	At the time of Mr. Trump's post, there was a clear immediate risk of harm, and his words of support for those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions.
	As president, Mr. Trump had a high level of influence.
	The reach of his post was large, with 35 million followers on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram.
	Facebook was justified in suspending Trump's accounts on January 6th.
	Okay, so the answer here is that anytime they want to suspend anybody for pretty much any reason, they can.
	They can jerry-rig a system in order to make that happen.
	That's what you should take away from this.
	That if you are of the left and you openly promote excuses for violence, if you're Peter Beinart and you're constantly promoting excuses for violence from actual terrorist groups in the Middle East, you're fine.
	If you are a person who promoted riots and looting throughout the summer, or even if you said that those people shouldn't be doing that, but you understand why they're doing it, they're great people, they're patriots.
	I mean, there are people on CNN who compared it to the Boston Tea Party, right?
	None of those people were removed.
	Only Trump was removed.
	You don't have to love what Trump said to recognize that the standard that Facebook is holding here is completely unsustainable.
	Because it's not a standard at all.
	And that these folks have way too much power in American life.
	They literally took the sitting president of the United States off the internet.
	If you take somebody off of Facebook, and Instagram, and YouTube, and Twitter, you've effectively destroyed their ability to disseminate information at all.
	And that's the sitting president of the United States.
	Okay, so here's where the Oversight Board then goes.
	Then they do what is, I think, the funniest thing here.
	They just toss the ball back into the court of Facebook, right?
	So the Facebook Oversight Board is supposed to be independent, and they're going to relieve pressure on Facebook and all this.
	Instead, they just take the ball and throw it right back to Facebook.
	So they say, In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear published procedure.
	Indefinite suspensions are not described in the company's content policies.
	Facebook's normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.
	It is Facebook's role to create necessary and proportionate penalties that respond to severe violations of its content policies.
	The board's role is to ensure that Facebook's rule and processes are consistent with its content policies, its values, and its human rights commitments.
	In applying a vague, standardless penalty, and then referring this case to the board's resolve, Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities.
	The board declines Facebook requests and insists Facebook apply and justify a defined penalty.
	So they've said you have three choices.
	You can remove the violating content and leave the account.
	You can impose a time bound period of suspension, like six months, or you can permanently disable the page and you guys have to make the decision.
	So the great irony here is that Facebook was attempting to throw the ball away from itself and the board just threw it right back at them.
	So that's kind of hilarious.
	So Facebook, no matter what, is caught in the middle here.
	But, there are a few things to be noted here.
	Facebook's oversight board is just recognizing a reality.
	Which is that these standards don't exist.
	They don't exist.
	And the media loves that these standards don't exist.
	This is the best part.
	Our establishment media, they hate Facebook.
	They hate Twitter.
	So long as they are open platforms.
	So long as they are closed platforms, they love them.
	Which is why you had Brian Stelter saying that he was very upset that the oversight board might let Trump back on the internet.
	He literally said this.
	There are a lot of members of this board that are free speech advocates, First Amendment absolutists in some cases, that are going to make an argument that these platforms should not be in the position of making these choices at all.
	If Trump is brought back on Facebook, it'll likely be for those reasons.
	But a lot of this has to do with the memory hole, right?
	The riot going down the memory hole.
	That's what Fox and Right-Wing Media has been trying to do, and I worry that this may be another result of that.
	Okay, so he's very worried that Facebook might be too pro-free speech.
	That would be such a disaster for the media, because if they're pro-free speech, then maybe CNN actually has competitors in the online space.
	All righty.
	Meanwhile, there is a vast debate breaking out in the House GOP.
	There is chaos inside the Republican Party over a simple question, whether Donald Trump won or lost the 2020 election.
	Apparently, this is a grave consequence To the media, it is a grave consequence inside the Republican caucus.
	Because the idea that is being promulgated by the media is that unless you go out on TV every single day and say that Joe Biden won the election fair and square in every possible way, then this means that you are a liar and a bad person and you are promoting the quote-unquote big lie.
	And on the other side, Trump is saying you're promoting the big lie if you say that he lost the election and all of this.
	Well, I want to talk about that in a second.
	But I want to first mention that there is a big lie that is promoted by the Democratic Party, like, continuously.
	And you'll see why I'm doing this.
	This is not a whataboutism thing because I'm not a fan of lies in either case.
	There's a lie that is promoted by the Democratic Party, and it is ensconced in every area of media coverage.
	It is ensconced in every area of Democratic policymaking.
	And that lie is that there is widespread voter suppression happening throughout Republican states, and that voter suppression is directed at Black Americans.
	See, one of the things the Democrats have banked on for a very, very long time is the idea that they will always, and forever, have an increasing share of minority votes.
	And it turns out that the demographics is destiny argument is not a perfectly good argument.
	Democrats basically bet after 2008 when Barack Obama won the sweeping victory with large majorities of nearly every subgroup in the United States, including white Americans.
	It turns out that after 2008, Barack Obama was not a popular president.
	His policies were not popular.
	His Congress was swept out of power in 2010.
	And so Barack Obama did something different.
	He said, I'm going to put together this intersectional coalition of historically dispossessed groups.
	And we are going to build a new coalition, a coalition of the ascendant.
	And this ascendant coalition is demographically different than the old coalition.
	And basically, this new coalition is growing, the Republican coalition is going to be whiter, and it's going to die off.
	This was not something that was hiding the ball.
	There were Democrats like Ronald Brownstein overtly saying this sort of stuff for years, talking about the Browning of America, how this inevitably meant that the Republican Party was on the outs and Democrats would win forevermore.
	And there are some people on the right who responded to this in similarly unconscionable fashion, suggesting that demographics was destiny, and that if we had too many people of particular races, that this meant that Republicans could never win again, and conservative principles were dead, and all this.
	It's not true.
	Okay, so the reality is that this isn't true.
	The reality is that human beings are individuals, and that what we are seeing in the United States is, in fact, shifting in voting patterns.
	And in 2020, Donald Trump won an outsized chair compared to other Republicans of the Latino vote, for example.
	Donald Trump actually did better with black voters in 2020 than he did in 2016.
	Even the New York Times is now acknowledging that rising diversity might not help Democrats as much as they hope.
	According to Nate Cohn, the Census Bureau released two important sets of data last week that have big implications for American politics, and that challenged some prevailing assumptions for both Democrats and Republicans.
	The first set of data lays out long-term demographic trends widely thought to favor Democrats.
	Hispanics, Asian Americans, and multiracial voters grew as a share of the electorate over the last two presidential races, and white voters, who historically tended back the GOP, fell to 71% in 2020 from 73% in 2016.
	The other data set tells a second story.
	Population growth continues to accelerate in the South and the West, so much so that some Republican-leaning states in those regions are gaining more electoral college votes.
	The states won by President Biden will be worth 303 electoral votes down from 306 electoral votes in 2020. The demographic, the democratic disadvantage in the electoral college just got worse again, says the New York Times. These demographic and population shifts are powerfully clarifying about electoral politics in America.
	The increasing racial diversity among voters isn't doing quite as much to help Democrats as liberals hope, or to hurt Republicans as much as conservatives fear.
	Because here's the thing.
	Republicans win a very, very large share of the Hispanic vote in both Texas and Florida, for example.
	Why?
	Well, because they do better outreach than they do in places like California.
	And also, because not all Latino and Hispanic voters are from the same country.
	There's a difference between Cuban voters, for example, and Mexican voters in terms of voting patterns.
	Which makes sense.
	Those are different countries.
	There is a difference in how people vote.
	Some of it is cultural, and much of it is individual.
	One of the things that people who study demographics have been noticing is that an increasing share of Hispanic and Latino voters identify as white now.
	Why?
	Well, because they don't wish to see themselves particularly as displaced people from a home country, but rather as really non-ethnically based.
	This is a weird kind of thing that's been happening.
	It's why you see on Census Bureau data, people will ask you, are you Hispanic?
	Are you Hispanic who identifies as white?
	These are actual demographic categories that appear on Census Bureau forms now.
	What this suggests is that demographics are not destiny, and so the entire democratic Agenda item, which was, we will get more people in the intersectional coalition vote for us and we'll ignore the rest of America, is not likely to win them everlasting victory.
	And so what they have to do is scare the living hell out of people of minority persuasion.
	People who are ethnic minorities in the United States, the Democrats are going to scare the living hell out of them.
	In order to scare the living hell out of them, they have to lie.
	This is why you see the Democrats continually suggesting that voter laws that call for voter ID are in fact a form of voter suppression.
	And the idea from people like Stacey Abrams is that limiting voting rights is on the Republican agenda, that they want to stop black people from voting, that they want to stop Hispanic people from voting, that they desperately want to stop minority people from voting, the Republican Party.
	And this is why you see Joe Biden out there suggesting over and over that voting laws that are looser in Georgia than they are in places like New York in many ways are actually Jim Crow.
	That's not true.
	It's a scare tactic.
	So this is the big lie being told by the Democratic Party is that there is a threat to black America, not only from white America, but particularly from conservative America.
	And Stacey Abrams pushes this every day and the media eat it up.
	The media feature her on the covers of magazines.
	The Democratic Party featured her during the DNC in a gubernatorial round table as though she had won the governorship of Georgia, even though she lost by 50,000 votes.
	It's hilarious.
	The same Democratic Party that says Trump lost Georgia by 13,000 votes, undeniably lost Georgia.
	I mean, look at it.
	They say that Governor Stacey Abrams is governor, even though she lost by 50,000 votes in the same state.
	But Stacey Abrams promotes this day in and day out.
	Here she was, for example, yesterday, talking about how Republicans want autocracy.
	The forerunners of autocracy and authoritarianism begin with limiting who has access to the right to vote, making it so difficult that people give up and abandon the perquisites of democracy.
	That makes it much easier for those who do not intend to share power to hoard it.
	And so I am deeply afraid, and it seems like slightly hyperbolic, but in a nation like the US with its changing demography, if the response to increased participation by communities of color, By young people, by women, if the response is to restrict their access and impede their participation, that is a very, very strong signal that we are heading in the wrong direction.
	Right.
	Notice the open argument there from Stacey Abrams.
	As the demographics of the country change, Democrats are going to win more seats.
	The only way that won't happen is if Republicans stymie the voting processes.
	And this is why we need things like H.R.
	1.
	We need a giant overhaul of America's electoral law so that people like Stacey Abrams can promote ballot harvesting and can promote no voter I.D.
	And all of the rest of this.
	And now here's the problem.
	It's just not true.
	Voter suppression is not a major problem in the United States.
	In fact, voter suppression is so much of a not major problem in the United States that black voters in many of these swing states, going all the way back to 2008, outvote their share of the population.
	This is the big lie, right?
	The big lie pushed by the Democrats.
	And when I say the big lie, I don't mean like the biggest of lies, which is Holocaust denial.
	I mean, it is a big lie pushed by Democrats today that voter suppression is a major problem in the United States.
	It is just not true.
	In the Wall Street Journal today, there's a piece titled, What Was That About Voter Suppression?
	from the editorial board.
	Census figures released Thursday show that turnout in 2020 reached a near historic high for a presidential election, with 66.8% of voting-age citizens casting ballots, 0.9 percentage points shy of the 1992 record.
	Turnout was 5.4 percentage points higher than in 2016, 3.2 points higher than in 2008, when Barack Obama drove scores of young people and minorities to the polls.
	The share of Hispanics, 53.7%, and Asians, 59%, of voting age, who cast ballots also hit new peaks.
	Black voting, 62.6%, surpassed any presidential year save 2008 and 2012 when Barack Obama was on the ballot.
	Notably, GOP states with stricter voting rules didn't experience significantly lower minority turnout.
	Black turnout was highest in Maryland, 75.3%, followed by Mississippi, 72.8%, and lowest in Massachusetts, 36.4%. Liberals have lambasted Georgia for purging voters and restricting ballot access, but Georgia had a smaller black-white voting gap than Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia, and California, all states controlled by Democrats.
	The states with the biggest black-white voting gaps?
	Massachusetts, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Colorado.
	Three allow same-day voter registration.
	Good luck trying to discern a link between a state's voting rules, partisan control, and minority turnout.
	So in other words, it's just not true.
	The idea that there is a vast attempt to stop the demographic wave of the United States, the new demographic wave, through voter suppression, it's not true.
	But it is a key talking point for Democrats because it fosters their entire agenda.
	It suggests that Republicans are racist, trying to stop black people from voting.
	It suggests you need federalized control, top-down, of voting protocols taking power away from the states.
	And it underlines the idea that as the demographics of the United States change, the destiny of the United States changes, right?
	So this is the lie that is being pushed by Democrats, and every Democratic leader mirrors it.
	And so do members of the media.
	There's an entire article in the Washington Post today about how two black CEOs got corporate America to pay attention to voting rights.
	And of course, it is this sycophantic, slobbering piece about how Kenneth Chenault It has pushed people in corporate America to mirror his political priorities.
	Chenault went on to run American Express for 17 years, one of just 19 black chief executives ever at a Fortune 500 company.
	Chenault recently used his formula of fighting for change when he and another black chief executive, Kenneth Frazier of the pharmaceutical giant Merck, helped push much of corporate America to publicly oppose the restrictive voting rights bills being considered in dozens of states.
	So again, the idea here from the media, from the Democrats, from everybody in power, is a lie.
	It is a lie that black voters are being suppressed at the polls.
	It is not true.
	And Stacey Abrams, the great heroine of the Democratic side of the aisle, she's been promoting that lie ad nauseum.
	OK, all of which goes to show you why the Democratic Party, among polls of Republicans, I mean, among polls of Democrats, Democratic base loves the Democratic Party.
	There's a big difference between that and the Republican base, which basically hates the Republican Party.
	If you take polls of Democrats and their approval ratings for the Democratic Party, very, very high.
	For as long as I can recall, Republican base been a giant gap with the Republican Party.
	And one of the reasons for that is because they believe, I think quite correctly, that Republicans publicly do not mirror their priorities.
	It's one of the reasons that they had a very strong attachment to Trump.
	Because Trump, whatever else you can say about the guy, and there's a lot to say about him, he did have his finger on the pulse of what the base wanted to talk about.
	Now, maybe he said things in dumb ways.
	Maybe he shouldn't have talked about those things.
	Possible.
	But he certainly had his finger on the pulse of what the base wanted to talk about more than your typical Republican leadership did.
	This is breaking out into the open right now with regard to the future of the Republican Party, and it's really breaking out into the open in controversy surrounding Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming.
	We'll get to the issue in just one second.
	First, if you're a business owner who is hiring, you probably face a lot of challenges when it comes to finding the right person for your role.
	That's why hiring can feel like trying to find a needle in the haystack.
	Sure, you can post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along, which is why you should try, instead, ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	When you post a job on ZipRecruiter, it gets sent out to over 100 top job sites with just one click.
	Then, ZipRecruiter's matching technology finds people with the right skills and experience for your job and actively invites them to apply.
	In fact, ZipRecruiter is so effective that 4 out of 5 employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	It's no wonder over 2.3 million businesses have come to ZipRecruiter for their hiring needs.
	So while other companies overwhelm you with way too many options, ZipRecruiter finds you what you are looking for, the needle in the haystack right now.
	You can try ZipRecruiter for free at this web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	Once again, remember, head on over to this unique, magical place at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
	We've been using ZipRecruiter for years here at DailyWire because whenever we want to upgrade our employees, we always check out ZipRecruiter.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
	As you all know, The Daily Wire has been growing like crazy.
	I mean, just in a few months of the year, we released our first movie, we struck up a movie deal with Gina Carano, we launched a new talk show hosted by Candace Owens, We launched a new show hosted by me all in the last six months.
	And we moved our entire company, by the way, to Nashville and my branch of the company to Florida.
	We've been moving at the speed of light.
	So thank you for your support.
	Thank you guys.
	You're the ones who make all of this possible.
	And we want to continue to include you in all of our future plans.
	Every day on the show, I talk about a lot of amazing products and services from sponsors that I personally love and use, but we want to get to know you better so we can actually tailor our sponsors to you.
	Please go to dailywire.com slash Shapiro, fill out my audience survey, tell us a little bit more about yourself, and to sweeten that whole experience, those of you that do complete the survey will be entered to win a $1,000 gift card, which is a great deal.
	You can only take that survey once per Daily Wire show.
	If you want to increase your chances of winning $1,000, go listen to Michael Knowles.
	That's the only reason to listen to Knowles.
	Andrew Klavan or Matt Walsh should get access to their surveys as well.
	Again, my survey link is dailywire.com slash Shapiro.
	We would love to hear from you.
	Also, if you didn't catch last night's episode of Candace, don't worry.
	You can still watch the full interview with her and President Donald Trump.
	He stops by if you are a Daily Wire member.
	They discuss everything from the media's attacks against him and Melania to whether he is considering another presidential run in 2024.
	If you haven't joined Daily Wire yet, hurry now.
	This is your last chance to get 25% off a new membership with code Candace before the discount ends this Thursday, May 6th.
	Make sure you grab the audio podcast on Apple, Spotify, or wherever your platform of choice may be.
	Candace says things the mainstream media simply will not.
	Just head on over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
	Subscribe to Candace today.
	Be sure to leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
	here, you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Okay, so while the Democratic Party tends to reflect the priorities of its own voters, the Republican Party very often does not.
	So, Liz Cheney has gotten into hot water with other members of the Republican Party, particularly including President Trump, because she keeps saying over and over that Trump lost the 2020 election.
	Now, I've been saying literally since the day of the election that I was waiting to see evidence of massive voter fraud and massive voter irregularity that would explain Trump's loss in the swing states.
	I didn't see that presented by Trump.
	I really didn't see that presented by anybody.
	Doesn't mean there wasn't voter fraud.
	Doesn't mean there wasn't voter irregularity.
	In an election that included hundreds of millions of Americans, presumably there would be.
	But that does not mean that the margins were small enough that you would see a shift of 13,000 votes in Georgia, or 12,000 votes in Arizona, or 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania, or 120,000 votes in Michigan, or 14,000 votes in Wisconsin.
	Those are big margins.
	Those are not tiny margins when it comes to absolute number of votes that you would have to show were either falsified or were thrown out.
	And in fact, the Trump campaign didn't even make those allegations in its court filings.
	Its court filings were mainly about the unfairness of the rules, In some cases, like Pennsylvania, there was credence to that.
	But that still does not change the fact that you have to demonstrate actual evidence that voter fraud or regularity decided an election if you're going to claim that voter fraud or regularity decided the election.
	And I've said at the same time that I think that the real rigging of the election was not done on the level of voting.
	I think the real rigging of the election was done by the media throughout the election cycle and before.
	I think the media routinely lied about Trump.
	I think they routinely lied about Biden.
	I think that they hid Biden's radicalism.
	I think they allowed Biden to hide in the basement and not answer a single difficult question.
	I think that they overtly stymied the New York Post story about Hunter Biden in the month before the election.
	I think they lied about Trump being a Russian asset for four years.
	I think a lot of things impacted the 2020 elections.
	And that included, of course, Donald Trump making some rather large boo-boos during the election campaign.
	But the reality is that if the media had covered that thing, anything like they should have covered that thing, it would have been a much closer election at the very least.
	And because it was a pretty close election in the swing states, I have very little doubt that if they had, for example, fairly covered what was going on with COVID, as opposed to presenting Andrew Cuomo with the Man of the Year award every single day while he proceeded to kill all the olds in New York, And if they had covered the Black Lives Matter riots that were happening throughout the country in June, as they should have, then I think Trump probably would have won, despite the pandemic.
	Okay, so do I think that Trump, it depends on your definition of fairly, I suppose.
	If you think that Trump lost the election because of voter fraud and irregularity, I disagree.
	If you think that Trump lost the election because all the institutions of power were basically rigged against Trump, I think there is certainly some truth to that.
	Okay, so you can say all of that, And the Republican base may disagree on some of the fraud and irregularity arguments, but the Republican base is willing to hear that.
	What they don't want, and this is really what it comes down to for Liz Cheney, is Liz Cheney keeps going out on places like MSNBC, and then she keeps telling those anchors exactly what they want to hear.
	This is the problem.
	You can say everything that I've just said, and the Republican base will not be angry with you.
	The Republican base understands that there are a lot of decent arguments for the notion that Trump Lost the election in terms of the number of votes, but that there are a lot of mitigating factors that led to him losing that really were rigged against him.
	The Republican base can hear that.
	What the Republican base does not want to hear is that if you are somebody who believes that Trump got jobbed in some way during the election, this means that you are a promulgator of the big lie.
	And this means that you are a traitor to the United States and you're undermining American politics and politics.
	In other words, if you are in a leadership position in the Republican Party, what you say matters because you are considered a representative of the base.
	I agree with Liz Cheney that voter fraud and irregularity did not decide the 2020 election.
	I just think that Liz Cheney's public-facing priorities are not at all the public-facing priorities of the Republican Party.
	The Republican Party right now should not be focused on answering questions from the media about whatever Donald Trump's latest missive is about the 2020 election.
	The 2020 election happened in November.
	The Electoral College voted in December.
	Last I checked, the calendar now says it's May.
	Hey, it is not time to talk about that.
	And if the media insists on talking about that, as a Republican, you have every right and indeed every obligation to say, I don't know why we're talking about that.
	Why aren't we talking about the fact that the current president of the United States, Joe Biden, is doing a terrible job?
	Why aren't we talking about the looming inflationary crisis that's gonna hit the country?
	Why aren't we talking about the border crisis that you and Politico refuse to even say is a crisis?
	Why aren't we talking about the fact that Joe Biden's economic plans spend more money than has ever been created in human history?
	Why are you still talking about Trump?
	And the answer is the media want to talk about Trump because the media want to misdirect.
	The media don't want to cover what's going on in the White House.
	The media would prefer not to talk about the fact that Democrats are lying about things like voter suppression.
	In fact, they wish to promulgate those myths.
	So you'll see the media on their high horse about Voter fraud and irregularity, and we can't feature people on our networks who say this kind of stuff?
	Fine.
	Then don't feature anybody on your network who says that voter suppression is a major issue in Republican states.
	Because guess what?
	It ain't.
	You don't have any data to show that voter suppression is a major issue in the Republican states.
	So if you're gonna have a standard, have it be the same standard.
	But I don't think that there's the same standard.
	I think there's a double standard.
	And this is what Liz Cheney fails to appreciate, apparently.
	So, Kevin McCarthy, who is the House Minority Leader, and he wishes to be the House Majority Speaker.
	He wishes to be the Speaker of the House.
	And by the way, if Republicans somehow find a way to lose, maintain a minority in the House in 2022, every single person in a leadership position in the Republican Party should be fired.
	There is no way Republicans should lose the House in 2022.
	No freaking way.
	The policies of the Democrats are unpopular.
	They're going to start to bear ugly fruit.
	They already are in terms of violence in America's major cities.
	There's a reason that there's a net population gain in the South and in the West and in red states, particularly.
	Well, blue states are losing population.
	There is a reason for that.
	If Republicans cannot make hay while the sun shines in 2022, they deserve to lose their leadership positions.
	Right.
	So Liz Cheney has sort of been under fire for a while.
	And you'll remember a few months ago, Liz Cheney was merely asked about January 6th, and she said that January 6th was terrible, which is true, and then there were some people in the Republican Party who basically tried to vote of no confidence against her and it failed.
	And she got up in conference, and she said that she believes what she believes, and then the majority of the conference basically said, okay, fine, you can stay.
	Well then, Liz Cheney felt like she had to get into a bleep fight with Trump.
	Trump said something about how Liz Cheney's the worst, and instead of Liz Cheney just ignoring him, which is what she should have done politically, instead she decided to jump right in and be like, Donald Trump's a prevaricator, Donald Trump is the promoter of the big lot.
	Even if she believes that, which she's perfectly entitled to do, I have a question.
	What does that have to do with your job as the number three in the House?
	Seriously, like, speaking the truth is always your job.
	I get it.
	But there is also a truth that is you, as a powerful person in the Republican Party, have an obligation to forward the Republican agenda.
	That's why you were hired.
	So, are you forwarding the conservative and Republican agenda?
	Not by saying that sort of stuff, but by making that your chief focus in the media, by earning strange new respect from Chris Hayes at MSNBC.
	Is that forwarding the agenda?
	Okay, so Kevin McCarthy got caught on a hot mic talking to, I believe it was Steve Doocy of Fox & Friends.
	About Liz Cheney.
	And he said, listen, I'm not sure I can hold back the tide here against Liz Cheney.
	And frankly, it seems like her focus is more on getting attention for saying this sort of stuff, even if it's true, than it is on forwarding the agenda.
	Again, two things can be true at once.
	One, she can be saying some true things.
	And two, it ain't forwarding the agenda of the Republican Party.
	It is serving, I don't even know what her agenda would be like on a practical level, but it is certainly forwarding the agenda of a media that wished to keep focus on Donald Trump at all times, under all circumstances.
	I think she's got real problems.
	I've had it with... I've had it with... It's, you know, I've lost confidence.
	Well, someone just has to bring a motion, but I assume that will probably take place.
	Okay, so there were a bunch of polls that came out, and they suggested that Liz Cheney is in trouble in Wyoming, and Trump had tweeted at her, and it turned into this bleep fight.
	And, again, here is the issue for Liz Cheney.
	Your job is to fight the forwarding of the Democratic agenda, which, by the way, is the most radical, progressive agenda that we have seen in our lifetimes.
	It makes Barack Obama look like a piker.
	And if your chief focus, day in and day out, is how do I answer questions from MSNBC, you are not doing your job properly.
	It's also a good indicator.
	The Democrats are jumping on this, of course.
	Nancy Pelosi, of course, is out there defending Liz Cheney.
	There should be, again, when Nancy Pelosi is defending you, it's a pretty good indicator that even if you're right, you've sort of walked down the wrong path politically here.
	There's a difference between pragmatism and You know, what is happening right now, I will say.
	Nancy Pelosi is a liar.
	Nancy Pelosi says things that are untrue repeatedly.
	Nancy Pelosi promoted the idea that Donald Trump was a Russian collusion advocate, that Donald Trump was a Russian tool.
	She promoted the idea that voter suppression would decide the 2020 election.
	I mean, she's just a liar.
	But here's Nancy Pelosi praising Liz Cheney as a truth teller, which is always not a great sign.
	I do commend Lynne Cheney for her courage, for her patriotism.
	And I wish her well.
	Perhaps this challenge will make her stronger.
	I don't know.
	That's up to their caucus.
	I don't welcome their participation in our caucus, and I'm sure they don't welcome my participation in theirs.
	Okay, so Liz Cheney's response to all of this has been to double down and to basically give the media the issue they want, which is the Republican infighting over January 6th or the Republican infighting over Trump.
	Again, there are two responsibilities.
	One is to tell the truth, and the other is to forward the Republican agenda.
	And what people hired you to do was both.
	Okay, so Liz Cheney put out a statement, her spokesman did.
	This is about whether the Republican Party is going to perpetuate lies about the 2020 election and attempt to whitewash what happened on January 6th.
	Liz will not do that.
	That is the issue.
	No, that is not the issue.
	I won't whitewash that either.
	I've been very, very clear about what I thought happened in the 2020 election.
	I just said it five seconds ago.
	I've been very clear what I think about January 6th, which was a bunch of droogs and morons participating in an act of anti-democratic authoritarianism.
	I thought January 6th was quite terrible.
	You'll recall.
	I still think it was quite terrible.
	I think it was some of the worst imagery, just in terms of pure imagery, in the United States since September 11th.
	I think it was really, really bad.
	Also, I think the Democratic agenda to take over every institution in America and then weaponize it against American freedoms is a significantly greater threat than a bunch of morons and droogs running into the Capitol building and promptly getting their asses arrested.
	And by the way, failing in their mission to stop the electoral certification taking place.
	And as far as Donald Trump and his beliefs about the voter regularity and voter fraud of the election, it was Republican secretaries of state, and it was Republican Mitch McConnell, and it was Vice President Mike Pence who certified that election.
	End of story.
	Okay, you can say all of those things and still not fall into the trap of, I'm going to run over to the Democratic media to talk about how terrible the rest of my Republican colleagues are for saying different things.
	And this is why Liz Cheney is on the outs today.
	Republicans have a tendency to want to answer every question from the media, and they don't have to do it.
	They don't have to do it.
	It's a mistake.
	You see this from the governor of West Virginia, went on, I think it was CNN, to talk about his push for a ban on transgender athletes playing in opposite sports leagues, so men playing in women's leagues if they believe that they are women, for example.
	He went on CNN, he got browbeaten by a report.
	Why?
	Why?
	Just don't do it!
	There's no law that says you have to do that.
	There's no law that says that you have to answer every question from MSNBC.
	And by the way, if you do answer a question from MSNBC, you can give your honest opinion and then you can also swivel and clock MSNBC for its bias and for the lies that it tells.
	That's not moral equivalence.
	That would be honesty.
	It is honesty to say that you don't think the 2020 election was stolen via voter fraud and irregularity.
	You do think that the media did an awful job.
	You think they perverted the minds of Americans and told them a pack of lies and continue to tell them packs of lies that pervert the cause of American freedom.
	You can say all those things at once.
	But where you put your focus does matter when you're in a position of political leadership.
	So, that is where things stand with Liz Cheney today.
	My understanding is that Liz Cheney is in trouble inside the House Republican Caucus, and then if she gets ousted, presumably we will have a bevy of wonderful stories from the media about how the Republicans have doubled down on the fraud and lies of January 6th and November.
	Or alternatively, they just don't think Liz Cheney is being an effective leader on behalf of the party.
	How about that?
	Because that seems like the question at issue here.
	I believe two things at once.
	Liz Cheney is not incorrect in her assessment of voter fraud and regularity in 2020, or in her assessment of January 6th, and also she's not being an effective leader for the Republican Party right now.
	Both of those things can be true absolutely at once.
	Alrighty, so meanwhile, the Democratic agenda continues to roll out.
	Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, Really spooked investors yesterday.
	And she spooked investors because she is not great at her job.
	I understand that everybody thinks Janet Yellen's great at her job because she just keeps inflating the currency.
	But the reality is that the Federal Reserve acted for years As the chief economic policymaker in the United States, as opposed to Congress.
	And now, you have Congress blowing out the spending in extraordinary ways.
	And Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, being like, yeah, what if we just kept printing money?
	What if we just kept doing that?
	So yesterday, she made a boo-boo, and she actually spooked the markets, the markets dropped, because she was like, there might be inflation, but don't worry, the Fed can handle it.
	Which is like, um, I thought you said a minute ago there wasn't going to be any serious inflation.
	So here's Janet Yellen spooking the markets.
	It may be that interest rates will have to rise somewhat to make sure that our economy doesn't overheat, even though the additional spending is relatively small relative to the size of the economy.
	So it could cause some very modest increases in interest rates to get that reallocation.
	Okay, and everybody went, um, what now?
	Because you were saying five seconds ago that you weren't worried at all about inflation.
	Well, then she walked that back.
	According to the Washington Post, Treasury Secretary Yellen insisted Tuesday she's not concerned about the risks of economic overheating, hours after earlier comments about inflation caused a brief panic on Wall Street and invited fresh scrutiny about the White House's position.
	In an interview with The Atlantic released Tuesday morning, Yellen defended the administration's new spending proposals and said that the central bank could handle inflationary pressures with modest interest rate increases.
	Raising interest rates can slow the pace of economic growth by increasing the cost of borrowing.
	Okay, well then she walked it back.
	At a separate event with the Wall Street Journal later on Tuesday, Yellen was adamant she was not concerned about inflation and stressed she was not predicting or recommending an imminent increase in rates.
	She said, Well, here's the problem, of course.
	All of these folks keep suggesting that they can keep blowing up the currency and nothing will happen.
	Economists at the Bank of America Global Research said U.S.
	policymakers are testing the limits of Goldilocks.
	They are trying to heat up the economy as fast as possible without generating serious inflation.
	But what we have seen is that there is serious inflation, particularly for commodities.
	There's been a big backlog of orders on basic commodities.
	We talked about this yesterday on the program.
	The prices are going up.
	There's not enough labor in the economy.
	People are not re-entering the labor force because we are paying people to stay home.
	Jen Psaki said, we take inflationary risks incredibly seriously, except for how you don't.
	Because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about spending $2 trillion every three weeks.
	Biden has proposed more than $4 trillion of additional spending that would be infused into the economy over the course of the decade.
	The White House says those programs are accounted for with tax increases, but that's not true.
	So even Janet Yellen is starting to hint around the idea that perhaps there's going to be inflation, and everybody who's watching kind of knows this.
	Meanwhile, the crisis at the border continues to marinate.
	It's not getting any better.
	And Jen Psaki is out there saying this is all Trump's fault.
	Remember, how refreshing.
	She always told the truth, according to Brian Stelter at CNN.
	After four years of an immigration system rooted in destructive and chaotic policies, President Biden is taking the challenge head on and is building a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system.
	That's our objective.
	After coming into office, our administration immediately jumped into action to address the influx of migrants at the border, something that began during and was exacerbated by the Trump administration.
	Nope, you haven't done any of that stuff.
	You haven't mitigated it.
	You haven't made it better.
	You just got the media to stop talking about it for five seconds.
	That's all that's happened here.
	They put Kamala Harris on the problem, the Vice President of the United States, who giggles inappropriately and weirdly.
	She, actually, shocker.
	The Democratic Party, honestly, their politics is basically just a pagan cult at this point.
	Whatever is the issue that they wish to address becomes the cause of all things.
	It's like a pagan cult praying to the sun because they want the weather to change.
	Except they pray to the sun because they want climate change to be the cause of migration or something.
	It's so weird.
	Like, they keep saying this kind of stuff.
	And they'll say things like, oh, an uptick in violence in America's major cities?
	That's systemic racism.
	Or, alternatively, it's because you keep screwing with the police.
	Like, there's a major influx of migrants on the southern border who are openly saying to the media, we're coming because Biden's president.
	And you get Kamala Harris being like, oh, it's probably climate change.
	Or it could be, you know, the thing that is obviously causing the major influx to the southern border.
	Here was Kamala Harris blaming climate change for migration to the southern border, even though climate change is a slow and ongoing process over the course of the century.
	And yet we have seen a historic spike in the number of minors arriving on America's southern border without people or adults accompanying them.
	We are focused on addressing both the acute factors and the root causes of migration.
	And I believe this is an important distinction.
	We must focus on both.
	First, the acute factors.
	The catastrophes that are causing people to leave right now.
	The hurricanes, the pandemic, the drought, and extreme food insecurity.
	And then there are the long-standing issues.
	The root causes.
	And I'm thinking of corruption, violence, and poverty.
	The lack of economic opportunity.
	The lack of climate adaptation.
	And climate resilience.
	So we need to stop migration on the southern border through a carbon tax that will have an incremental decrease in effect on the temperature over the course of 100 years.
	Or alternatively, you could enforce border law.
	This lady, by the way, still has not been down to the border.
	The vice president still has not been down to the border.
	They put her in charge of the border, what, two and a half months ago?
	And there she is speaking at some sort of conference about climate change and the border crisis.
	Amazing at her job.
	Amazing.
	Again, if Republicans cannot win back the House because they're so divided over whatever thing Trump put out on DonaldJTrump.com.
	Trump, by the way, said that he was putting out a social media service yesterday.
	He didn't.
	He put up like a blog on his website that allows you to tweet out his thoughts to everybody else.
	That's fine, but it's not a social media service.
	If your chief concern right now is Trump and going into 2022, Liz Cheney allows Trump to be the number one issue, then Republicans are somehow going to blow it, which is incredible because Democrats have blown it.
	Democrats are continuing to blow it.
	On COVID, Democrats are blowing it.
	I mean, for example, Jen Psaki at the White House yesterday defended the CDC.
	Okay, so it turns out the CDC used the American Federation of Teachers' guidance to create school guidelines.
	Now, the American Federation of Teachers, last I checked, are not scientists.
	The CDC is the Center for Disease Control.
	It is literally their job to just present the data to you.
	And instead, they had Randy Weingarten rewrite all of the school standards, and then they trotted that out as though it was scientific.
	The entire media declared throughout the Trump administration that Trump was perverting the science.
	This administration openly does it and then defends it and nobody seems to give a damn.
	Here's Jen Psaki at the White House saying it's totally fine to have the American Federation of Teachers and one of the worst people in American politics, Randy Weingarten, write the standards for school reopenings.
	It's actually long-standing best practice for the CDC to engage with organizations and groups that are going to be impacted by guidance and recommendations issued by the agency. It doesn't mean they are taking everything they want or even a percentage of what they want, but it's important to understand the implementation components. They do so to ensure that recommendations are feasible and that they adequately address the safety and well-being of the individuals the guidance is aimed to protect.
	It's ridiculous.
	I mean, these are tools of the teachers' unions.
	And then they trot that out.
	Americans are not going to abide by this.
	They still, by the way, are trotting out Anthony Fauci, who's just a joke at this point.
	He's a bad joke.
	Nobody ought to pay attention to Anthony Fauci because he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
	He says things that make no sense according to other experts, according to people who know better than Anthony Fauci.
	I don't know how Anthony Fauci became America's doctor.
	First of all, all the best doctors I know are working in the private sphere.
	They're not working for the NIAID.
	All the epidemiologists that I know, and I've gotten to know several over the course of the last year, working at places like Johns Hopkins and Stanford, look at the fact that this guy's been working for the government.
	They look at government employees the same way you look at government employees.
	They're like, um, no, that's not, no.
	Anyway, Anthony Fauci, who's treated as some sort of religious figure, he keeps saying stupid crap that makes no sense.
	He was on CNN yesterday.
	Again, remember, he's heading up Biden's COVID team.
	He said yesterday we're at the bottom of the sixth inning.
	What is this, a seven inning game?
	Is he gonna get called on account of rain?
	How in the world are we at the bottom of the sixth inning?
	Are you insane?
	Are you an insane person?
	We have the lowest rates of COVID death that we have had in probably a year in the United States.
	And it's declining.
	And your answer is, we're in the bottom of the sixth inning?
	If you're a crazy person, here's Anthony Fauci.
	What inning are we in as far as this COVID pandemic is concerned?
	Well, you know, We're at least halfway through.
	I hope we're seeing, and I do believe, Wolf, I'm not trying to be overly enthusiastic about what's going on vis-a-vis the vaccine program, which is so successful, but we've really got to not declare victory prematurely.
	How about the bottom of the sixth?
	Try that one, Wolf.
	I'll go with the bottom of the sixth.
	That's not too bad.
	I wouldn't call them excessive.
	I would say they're conservative.
	Okay, now we know a few things.
	has said over the last 24 hours. Anthony Fauci also said that the CDC guidelines on summer camps, quote, I wouldn't call them excessive. I would say they're conservative. Okay, here are the, here are the guidelines for summer camps. Okay, now we know a few things. One, kids do not die from COVID. Okay, the number of kids who have died from COVID, that is a, That is, of course, there are people who die from every cause, but the number of kids who die from COVID is significantly lower than the number of kids who die from the flu every year.
	Fewer than 300 kids have died in the United States of COVID out of hundreds of thousands who have been infected with COVID.
	Second, everybody who's older in the United States has already had the opportunity to get a vaccine.
	In fact, everybody over the age of 16 in the United States has had the opportunity to get a vaccine.
	So you shouldn't be telling little kids that they have to mask up in 90 degree weather outdoors and stay away from each other.
	It's idiotic.
	It's foolish.
	Okay, here is the CDC guidance.
	All staff and kids masked at all times, even outdoors, Cohorts for kids.
	Three foot distance within cohorts.
	Six feet without.
	Limit shared objects like toys and sports equipment.
	Except that the CDC explicitly now says that you don't have to wipe down your counters.
	Surfaces are not vectors of transmission.
	No close contact sports or indoor sports.
	Outdoor sports should be masked.
	These are the standards from the CDC.
	And Anthony Fauci, that dope, is like, I wouldn't say that's excessive.
	You wouldn't say that's excessive?
	Americans are looking at you guys and saying, what the hell are you doing?
	Meanwhile, we got this addled old president who's going around doing completely nonsensical things, right?
	He goes over to Jimmy Carter's house and Jimmy Carter is like a thousand years old and unfortunately in not completely good health.
	He goes over to Jimmy Carter's house, takes the weirdest picture of all time.
	It looks like George Murrison standing next to Muggsy Bogues.
	And then he proceeds to unmask with the old dude.
	And you're like, uh, didn't you just say you're supposed to mask?
	And then he walks out of the house and he puts back on the mask.
	Because Joe Biden is not coherent on any of this crap.
	It's all virtue signaling nonsense from Joe Biden.
	Here is Joe Biden telling you that you know what?
	You know what?
	You, you need to keep following the CCT, CLB, GT, Q guidelines.
	Now that we have the vaccine supply, we're focused on convincing even more Americans to show up and get the vaccine that is available to them.
	If we succeed in this effort, as we did with the last, then Americans will have taken a serious step towards a return to normal.
	That's July 4th.
	But we're not there yet.
	That's why I'm asking people to continue to follow the CDC guidelines as we work to get more people vaccinated.
	Yeah, listen to this incoherent old dope.
	I'm sorry, as we work to get more people vaccinated, you know what we're watching right now?
	Yesterday, we were up to like three and a half million people being vaccinated every day.
	We are now down to lower than a million vaccine doses issued yesterday.
	You know why?
	Because we have a demand fall-off.
	You know why we have a demand fall-off?
	Because idiots like this and Anthony Fauci keep saying that even after you're vaccinated, you have to keep masking and mask your kids and send them outside in 95-degree weather and keep them six feet apart.
	That's why the demand is falling off.
	It's why people don't want to get the vaccine.
	There are polls that demonstrate this.
	I cited them yesterday on the show.
	Among GOPers, for example, there's an 18% gap between people who say they will get the vaccine if they have to keep the mask on, and then people who say they'll get the vaccine if they can take the mask off.
	An 18 percentage point jump in enthusiasm for the vaccine.
	That's just among people in the GOP.
	And yet Biden keeps promoting this stupidity that masks are the greatest protector rather than the vaccine.
	We can continue to drive vaccinations up and caseloads down.
	They're needlessly dividing the Cambodia, the country.
	I'm Jumaa Sehwag.
	See you in a bit, gentlemen.
	We can continue to drive vaccinations up and caseloads down.
	We'll need our masks even less and less.
	I know it will take time to get everything back to normal.
	You know.
	No, we're all going to have to be patient with one another.
	Masks have needlessly divided this country.
	Masking, as directed, is a patriotic duty.
	But so, too, is treating each other with respect and patience.
	Treat each other with respect and patience unless somebody unmasks publicly in the middle of the street with nobody around.
	Then that person is being unpatriotic.
	He literally said you should mask up for patriotism.
	And now he's like, yeah, we need to be tolerant of other people.
	He's he's just the worst.
	He's just.
	And by the way, there will be a backlash if Republicans don't blow it.
	So don't blow it, you idiots.
	How about represent the anti-Biden agenda?
	Because his agenda sucks!
	It's garbage!
	It's going to cause inflation.
	It's going to keep people out of the workforce.
	It's going to continue to cause racial conflagrations across the country.
	It's going to cause continued confusion about COVID and what you can and cannot do.
	The backlash is right there.
	This is low-hanging fruit for Republicans.
	And instead, you dope society that you want to argue over the 2020 election?
	Enough.
	Enough.
	If you're not dedicated to the agenda of stopping this sort of authoritarian crap, then get the hell out of the way.
	There's plenty of space in the commentariat.
	I'm sure CNN has a chair open for you if that's what you want to do.
	But you're not there to earn strange new respect.
	You're there to stop this agenda and reverse it, if possible.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour.
	In the meantime, go check out The Michael Moll Show.
	On today's episode, Michael will be talking about some breaking news.
	Bill and Melinda Gates are getting a divorce.
	So I guess there is just another, that's another Microsoft bug.
	That episode is available right now.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by A.R. Rahman.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
	Bill and Melinda Gates get divorced, Fauci prolongs the lockdowns, and a new celebrity prepares a run for president.

▲