All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
46:38
The Bureaucracy-Media Leak Machine | Ep. 1292
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
New allegations emerged that Tucker Carlson was caught up in a surveillance sweep and his emails leaked.
The media continued to gaslight Americans over critical race theory.
And the left's only remaining political angle is apparently January 6th.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
It's time to stand up to big tech.
Protect your data at expressvpn.com.
Slash Ben.
We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
First, a quick reminder.
July 4th, 1776, we declared our independence from taxation from a government an ocean away.
Today, our government is pushing us with oppressive taxes and they are inflating the dollar.
And if you look at the latest economic reports, you will see that there are some 9 million open jobs that are not being filled thanks to the government paying people to stay home.
All of this has a rather deleterious effect on your savings, which is just one reason why you should diversify at least a little bit into gold or silver.
If you haven't reached out to Birch Gold, Diversify part of your IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA.
Do it today.
Text Ben to 474747.
Get a free information kit on protecting your savings with gold.
I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
They have an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Countless five star reviews.
Over 10,000 happy customers.
Talk to them.
Have them help you safeguard your investments.
Text Ben to 474747 to claim your free information kit and speak with a precious metals expert on holding gold and silver in a tax sheltered account.
Again, you owe it to yourself to at least ask all the questions and get all the answers you need with regard to investing in precious metals and then diversify at least a little bit into an asset that has never been worth zero.
Again, text Ben to 474747, protect your savings today.
Alrighty, so big story of the day is that Tucker Carlson claimed, you'll recall about a week ago, that the NSA had been spying on his emails, that they had been looking into his emails and his communications, and that he had heard from somebody inside the NSA that the NSA had gotten control of these things and that they were going to leak them to the press.
Now, two things can be true at once.
One, Tucker Carlson could have been caught up in some sort of surveillance sweep to target American citizens.
The NSA has to essentially Catch you up in a sweep with foreign citizens.
So, for example, we're monitoring some sort of spy from Russia, and that person talks with an American, and we end up picking up the American's communications because we're monitoring the spy from Russia, for example.
But to specifically target an American citizen, you require a FISA surveillance warrant.
You have to go to a FISA court.
Now, can that be gamed?
Absolutely.
That's exactly what happened with Carter Page.
The Department of Justice put forward a bad FISA warrant against Carter Page and then proceeded to basically monitor all of his communications and surveil him, despite the fact that there was no real evidence that he was a Russian asset at all.
So, it's certainly possible.
What appears to have happened in this particular case with Tucker is the two simultaneous things.
One, that they were monitoring foreign intelligence officers or foreign threats, supposedly, and those people were apparently speaking to Tucker.
What they are claiming.
And two, the actual crime is if somebody leaks that material.
So this raises a couple questions.
One, are we too broadly construing the surveillance statutes?
Answer here is yes.
In order to catch up prominent people and then you'd have to unmask the people because typically in order to find out who the American citizen is on the other side of the line you have to go through what's called the unmasking process and this is supposed to facilitate national security.
But as we saw, with regard to Susan Rice and the Obama administration in the last days of the Obama administration.
They were unmasking people like Michael Flynn, specifically because they wanted to do political damage is what it looks like.
So it looks like there are two separate things that could have been happening here.
One, surveillance of Tucker, sort of by way of accidents is what they are going to claim, but then you have to question given their prior record, whether that is an accident.
And two, the actual leaking of the material, because Tucker is suggesting, not just that the NSA caught him up in some sort of surveillance sweep, but that his emails are going to be leaked to the press.
Okay, this is a deep and devastating criminal activity.
When you have members of the so-called deep state, when you have members of the intelligence community, the deep state, I'm not talking about some giant conspiracy, deep state, what I'm talking about here is people who are career bureaucrats who exist inside an area of the American government where there is no effective turnover.
When those people decide that they're going to abuse their power by getting access to private information and then blowing that out in public, that is a crime.
And the fact that we've been unable to track down people who have been leaking classified information about their fellow American citizens to the general public just demonstrates once again why people have very little trust in our nation's institutions.
All of this came to a head yesterday when Axios reported on it.
Axios reports Tucker Carlson was talking to US-based Kremlin intermediaries about setting up an interview with Vladimir Putin shortly before the Fox News host accused the NSA of spying on him.
Sources familiar with the conversations tell Axios.
Those sources said U.S.
government officials learned about Carlson's efforts to secure the Putin interview.
Carlson learned that the government was aware of his outreach, and that's the basis of his extraordinary accusation, followed by a rare public denial by the NSA that he had been targeted.
Now remember, when the NSA said he wasn't targeted, that doesn't mean they didn't catch him up in a surveillance sweep.
And if they actually have people there who are leaking his personal information, that is a separate crime and a separate issue.
Axios has not confirmed at this point whether any communications from Carlson have been intercepted, and if so, why?
And this is a really big problem, okay?
Because why exactly would Tucker be caught up in some sort of surveillance sweep with regard to attempting to broker an interview with Vladimir Putin?
Vladimir Putin did a sit-down interview with NBC News like a month ago.
Were the NBC News anchors caught up in the surveillance sweep?
Were the NBC News producers caught up in the surveillance sweep?
We have no evidence that they were.
And certainly nothing that they said was in danger of being leaked to the media.
There are deep connections in Washington, D.C.
between the media and the Democratic Party.
And the Democratic Party overwhelmingly dominates the bureaucratic halls of power.
And so you do have this democratic media complex where information is laundered out into the public via intelligence apparatuses.
and pushed into the media.
We saw this with the Steele dossier, for example, which was leaked out from the federal government to sources in the media, who then just blasted it out.
You'll remember that BuzzFeed News just blasted out the entire Steele dossier without fact-checking any of the claims, suggesting that it was noteworthy specifically because James Comey met with President Trump and gave him a copy of the Steele dossier.
This, quote-unquote, made it newsworthy and then allowed BuzzFeed to simply blast out the allegations, which became the cause of the left for essentially four years.
People on the left still claiming that the Steele dossier was filled with unspoken truths, or now spoken truths.
According to Axios, Carlson told his roughly 3 million viewers on June 28th that the day before, he had heard from a whistleblower within the U.S.
government who reached out to warn us that the NSA is monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take the show off the air.
Carlson said that his source, who is in a position to know, repeated back to us information about a story we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails.
Carlson said it's illegal for the NSA to spy on American citizens.
Things like that should not happen in America.
Unfortunately, they do happen, and in this case, they did happen.
The NSA said that his allegation is untrue.
The question is, which allegation?
Because Tucker, he's actually wrapping up a few allegations there.
One is that he was caught up and that they were monitoring his communications.
And the other is that they were specifically targeting his communications.
And not quite the same thing.
One is legal, one is illegal.
But the leak is certainly illegal.
A Fox News spokesperson said, We support any of our hosts pursuing interviews and stories free of government interference.
Carlson said, As I've said repeatedly, because it's true, the NSA read my emails and then leaked their contents that's an outrage, as well as illegal.
It's unclear why Carlson or his source has axios would think this outreach could be the basis for NSA surveillance or a motive to have his show canceled.
Journalists routinely reach out to world leaders to request interviews.
And numerous American journalists have interviewed Putin in recent years.
Chris Wallace earned Fox News' first Emmy nomination for its 2018 Putin interview.
Carlson told Mario Bartiromo his executive producer knew about the communications in question.
That was the only other person, and he didn't mention anybody else, including his wife.
The NSA's public statement did not deny directly that any Carlson communications had been swept up by the agency.
Axios has now submitted a request for comment to the NSA on Wednesday, asking whether the agency would also be willing to categorically deny that the NSA intercepted any of Carlson's communications in the context of monitoring somebody he was talking to in his efforts to set up an interview with Putin.
An NSA spokesperson declined to comment, referred Axios back to the agency's earlier carefully worded statement.
In other words, the NSA is denying the targeting of Carlson, but is not denying that his communications were incidentally collected.
So, what exactly happens next?
According to Axios, the first and least likely scenario is the U.S.
government submitted a request to a FISA court to monitor Carlson.
A more plausible scenario is one of the people Carlson was talking to as an intermediary was under surveillance and then Carlson was caught up in that.
In that scenario, Carlson's emails or text messages could have been incidentally collected as part of monitoring that person, but Carlson's identity would then have been masked.
In order to know that the texts and emails were Carlson's, a U.S.
government source would have to unmask Carlson, and that is only necessary if the unmasking is required to understand the intelligence.
So two sources familiar with Carlson's communications said his two Kremlin intermediaries live in the U.S.
The sources could not confirm whether both are American citizens or whether both were on U.S.
soil at the time they communicated with Carlson, which is relevant because if one was a foreign national and on foreign soil during the communications, the U.S.
government wouldn't have necessarily had to seek approval to monitor those communications.
Here's the bottom line.
We haven't seen what exactly Tucker is suggesting is going to be leaked out here, but if there is a leak from the intelligence apparatus about Tucker Carlson's emails, that is a crime.
And it would not be the only crime committed during the Biden tenure or, frankly, during the Trump tenure.
The Obama administration was notoriously non-leaky.
There were not a lot of leaks coming out of the Obama administration.
Why?
Well, because the bureaucracy favored Obama.
But there were tons of leaks during the Trump administration targeting Trump officials, targeting Trump himself.
We routinely saw information that the American public really does not have a quote-unquote right to see because they are private communications.
We saw all of that stuff coming out routinely during the Trump administration and post-Trump, we have seen more of that.
You'll recall that just a few weeks ago, the entire media decided it would be worthwhile to blast out the ProPublica report about the tax returns of people like Jeff Bezos.
Now, none of that is obtained legally.
It is illegal to leak somebody's tax records from the IRS.
In fact, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General of the United States last month, he said that he was going to track down who had committed those leaks.
We have yet to hear any follow-up on this particular issue.
To be honest, I know nothing more about this than what I read in the ProPublica piece, which I also read and was astonished.
Now, what I did read in that piece was that the director of the IRS is on it.
And he said that their inspectors were working on it.
And I'm sure that that means it will be referred to the Justice Department.
And this was on my list of things to raise after I finish preparing for this hearing.
And I promise you it will be at the top of my list.
We will see.
We will see.
You know, count me a little bit skeptical because it turns out that, again, the intelligence apparatus and the bureaucracy is leaking and they are leaking almost solely with regard to people on one side of the political aisle.
When you weaponize the parts of the American government that are not subject to public approval, You can't unelect the bureaucrats, and you have to rely on people like Merrick Garland to ferret them out and fire them.
Even the Trump administration was not fully able to do that.
You remember that the Trump administration got itself in all sorts of trouble because they were doing leak investigations on House Democrats in the media, specifically because they were trying to find out who inside the administration, who inside the bureaucracy, was leaking information about, for example, the Mueller investigation to the media.
And you remember, those leaks were constant.
Many of them were untrue.
You saw that information coming constantly from the bureaucracy.
Well, when the bureaucracy has the media on speed dial, your privacy does not count anymore.
And then you wonder why people don't trust the institutions of the American government?
Why they don't believe that these institutions are neutral in any particular way?
The Tucker story is a good indicator of why people don't feel that those institutions are neutral.
If Tucker Carlson, even if he was legally caught up in some sort of sweep, if that information is leaked out to the media, that is a massive scandal.
And it should be a massive scandal because it means they can do it to you.
It means that anytime they find somebody who's politically unpalatable, And they catch them up in some sort of intelligence sweep.
They can unmask that person and then they can just reveal that information to a general public anytime they want, which means that you can't trust that any of your information is safe at all.
It means that unless you're using some sort of VPN or unless you're using a special email service, all that information can be gathered pretty easily by the government.
The government frankly can subpoena much of it.
And then, members of the government can leak that information out about you.
So whether you like Tucker, you know, there are a lot of folks on the show who are Tucker fans, a lot of folks who listen to the show who are not Tucker fans, whether you like or dislike Tucker is completely aside from the point.
The point is that when you have a bureaucracy that is specifically able to, without any real fear, leak out private information of American citizens to harm them politically, You're living... That is an aspect of totalitarianism.
It is an attempt, by the powers that be, to destroy people that they oppose at any particular time, and there is no answerability and no accountability.
Alrighty, coming up in just one second.
We're going to talk about the left's view that true patriotism is apparently anti-patriotism.
This is their continued push for critical race theory and how they would really like to indoctrinate your children.
They're becoming clearer and clearer about this and it is quite ugly.
First, let us talk about keeping your home safe.
There are thousands of reasons why protecting my home matters to me.
If somebody stops by or something is going on outdoors around the house, Ring will let me know.
It's peace of mind any time knowing my home is protected.
At my house, I can keep an eye on every corner of the house with Rings easy to install indoor and outdoor cams.
To get Ring Alarm for yourself, go to ring.com slash ben.
That's ring.com forward slash ben.
It's the perfect way to start your Ring experience.
Besides Ring being a powerful asset for my home, Ring is also an affordable whole home security system you can easily install yourself.
And it's never been more important to be able to see who's there or what's happening anytime around the house, inside or outside.
I can see it all in one simple app.
That's right.
With Ring, my family and I can keep an eye on our home no matter where we are, right from our phone.
It's great to know you're not going to miss a visitor with Ring's hassle-free, easy-to-install indoor and outdoor cams, and know when those packages are delivered.
Start protecting your home today with Ring Alarm.
Go to ring.com slash ben, get your Ring Alarm Security Kit today.
You can build a system that's right for your home, have it up and running in minutes.
That is ring.com slash ben.
Again, ring.com slash ben.
Go check them out right now.
Ring.com slash ben to get your Ring Alarm Security Kit today.
Alrighty.
Meanwhile, the left has increasingly ceded the notion of patriotism to the right.
And they're starting to realize that this is a problem.
So much of what they're indoctrinating our children into in the public schools is a notion that America is, at baseline, at root, a very, very bad place.
It is, as Cori Bush says, a place built upon stolen land.
And if by this she means that the United States was built on military conquest and settling, that is true for literally every civilization in the history of mankind.
It's just that the United States was really good at it.
Or the original inhabitants of the United States from Europe had a higher ability to occupy land and dispossess the people who were on it than other people who had previously existed on the continent.
But the notion that the United States is uniquely bad in world history is, of course, belied by the reality of what the United States has been, namely a nation that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people to end slavery, a nation that freed Europe multiple times, that defeated communism, that made itself the most racially tolerant place on planet Earth.
Literally, there is no more racially tolerant place than the United States on planet Earth.
And yet the notion of the left is that true patriotism is anti-patriotism.
We saw this a lot during the Bush administration.
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism is what you constantly heard.
Well, it depends on what the nature of the dissent is.
Because if you dissent from the idea that America is good, that is not in fact the highest form of patriotism.
But the left seems to be ceding root baseline patriotism to the right, which is a hell of a political move.
So, for example, over the weekend, CNN made the argument that flying the American flag is increasingly seen as a Republican symbol.
The question is why you guys are doing that.
I mean, really?
Joe Biden doesn't want to do that.
If you look at Joe Biden's July 4th speech, it is old-style Democratic speechmaking in which he talks about the glories of America and the wonders of the flag and the greatness of July 4th.
But the Democratic Party increasingly is uncomfortable.
They're in a post-American moment.
They don't believe that America is good.
And so they're increasingly ceding all of the symbols of American patriotism to the right, which is a really stupid move.
And here is CNN discussing it.
I wanted to see what you both think about an article in the New York Times that has garnered a lot of attention, titled, A Fourth of July Symbol of Unity That May No Longer Unite.
This is about, of course, the American flag, and the author writes, Today, flying the flag from the back of a pickup truck or over a lawn ...is increasingly seen as a clue, albeit an imperfect one, to a person's political affiliation in a deeply divided nation.
The idea here, and there are moments that are documented in this story, of people, liberals, making an assumption, seeing an American flag, that maybe the person flying it is actually a Trump supporter or is a conservative.
Okay, so again, this generalized point that the American flag is bad, right, is backed up by the fact that you have players in multiple sports who are now celebrated for kneeling for the American flag or kneeling for the national anthem.
Now, that's a weird move.
But this is the move that the Democrats are increasingly making.
The highest form of patriotism is to suggest that America is terrible and needs to be fundamentally changed.
And the best way of fundamentally changing America is, of course, to indoctrinate your children.
The best way to change the future of the United States is to take control of the education of your kids.
And this has been going on, as we've been discussing at length on the show, with regard to things like race or sexual politics.
It's been going on in the public schools for decades on end at this point.
And now that the left is finally being exposed for what it is with regard to the public schools, their simple move is just to deny.
So Nicole Wallace, for example, had on Randy Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, who has said, the American Federation of Teachers, by the way, recently was I mean, they literally had an event in which Ibram X. Kendi appeared last night.
Okay, so they're very much in favor of the quote-unquote anti-racist movement, which is an outgrowth of critical race theory.
And is an outgrowth of the idea that America is inherently bad, and that America is imbued with whiteness, and that the only way to overcome that whiteness is to destroy the institutions.
Here is Nicole Wallace trying to soft-pedal critical race theory, because again, our media are invested in this sort of stuff.
You tweeted this.
Critical race theory is not taught in K-12 schools.
The rights culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism, or discrimination as such to try to make it toxic.
We've talked about teachers getting bullied.
We've talked about the chaos.
What about the kids?
I mean, I think it's a very scary prospect.
We look to the next generation to sort of Yes, the culture war is going to damage our kids, says Nicole Wallace.
It was fine when Randy Weingarten and company were indoctrinating our kids.
It's when people start to push back that we've got a problem.
She's denying that the American Federation of Teachers is teaching critical race theory.
Meanwhile, they literally had Ibram X. Kendi, the great race grifter of the country right now, speak to an AFT conference yesterday.
Yesterday, in which he said this, quote, to be anti-racist is to admit the times which were being racist.
He said to be racist is to constantly, consistently deny, deny, deny, like Donald Trump.
Kendi said, in studying the history of racism, even studying the history of times in which people were being racist, what I found was a consistent sort of narrative.
It was just denial.
It was people denying the ways in which they were being racist.
The racist policies.
The racist ideas.
See, right now, if you say that you're not a racist, it's because you're actually a racist.
It was a basic Kafka trap then.
Kendi suggested that critical race theory is not being taught in K-12 schools.
But, of course, that is not true.
Critical race theory lies at the root of virtually all of whiteness studies, and it lies at the root of anti-racism studies, in the same way that intersectionality started off as like a small legal article by Kimberly Crenshaw and then quickly became an ideology that spread throughout the nation.
This is what happens in academia, right?
They're very Sort of nuanced and complex, but radical arguments made in academia.
They're simplified and they're blasted out to the entire population via a wide variety of outlets.
And that's how you end up with CRT being taught to our kids.
And the media want to defend this stuff.
The media are interested in the idea that it is an active good to indoctrinate your kids in non-traditional modes of Americanism.
So, for example, CNN yesterday.
Again, their constant move is, the reason that you're bucking against critical race theory in public schools, the reason that you're upset with all of this, is because you don't understand that true patriotism requires us to indoctrinate your children, and you don't understand the indoctrination.
The big problem is you don't understand critical race theory.
This is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Nothing is critical race theory, according to the left.
If you say Richard Delgado and Gene Stefanchik argue specific premises, they'll say, well, even that is not critical race theory.
You just don't understand it.
No, we understand it.
It's real bad.
But here is CNN trying to pretend.
They're gaslighting you.
You don't know what critical race theory is, so why would you oppose it?
CNN's Ellie Reeves spoke with a teacher who uses critical race theory and looked at how backlash to this framework has exploded.
So Ellie, do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?
No.
Critical race theory is an academic framework that says racial inequality is perpetuated by the racism embedded in America's laws, not by individual bigotry.
But relentless propaganda from some conservatives has created a panic that white people, and especially white children, are under attack.
Okay, except the critical race theory explicitly says that if you are white, you benefit from those systems.
Regardless of whether you think you do, or whether you're racist, you benefit from those systems.
So you have to separate from your own whiteness.
Okay, this is a part of critical race theory.
So, again, the goal here from the media, from much of the left, is to disassociate from traditional symbols of American unity or traditional ideas that undergird American unity and to indoctrinate kids.
There's just no question that this is happening right now, unfortunately.
The indoctrination of kids that is now the purview of the left, right?
The left believes, again, that fundamental American principles that are taught in the home, or fundamental traditional principles about religion, or God, or traditional sexual mores, or individual rights, all that stuff has to be taught out of our kids.
As you heard, right there, Nicole Wallace say, the dangerous thing is if parents would be allowed to parent their children in accordance with those old values.
We have to allow the children to evolve.
It's important.
For the children to evolve.
And every so often, you see, you know, some pretty solid evidence that folks on the radical left, this is their intent.
They're not really hiding it.
In California, as I mentioned yesterday on the show, it is written in law that kids kindergarten through six are now going to be taught effectively LGBTQ propaganda.
And that is not being done specifically for any other reason.
They say that it's about the quote-unquote safety of kids.
It is not about the safety of kids.
There are ways to protect kids from bullying that do not involve teaching LGBTQ radical propaganda.
That is not what the goal here is.
The goal instead is to change the mindset and the sexual behavior or interests or confusion of small children.
That's the only reason why you would teach this crap to kindergartners.
You don't have to do any of that.
Stop bullying.
If you have a neutral law about bullying in schools, if you have neutral rules about bullying in schools, that is good enough.
And that applies to everybody, regardless of how those kids act in the classroom.
But once you start teaching kids about gender fluidity, that can only be an attempt to indoctrinate them in a particular way of viewing the world and to confuse them about behavior.
That is all that can be.
So there was a video that came out yesterday Or it had come out, I guess, a few days ago, and then it was taken down yesterday from the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir.
It kind of went viral on the right.
Folks on the left were claiming that it was a parody.
The question is, what exactly is it a parody of?
So here is the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir.
They released this on YouTube.
They did a video titled, We Are Coming For Your Children.
They say that it was tongue-in-cheek humor.
But the problem is that the statement that they released doesn't really suggest that it is fully tongue-in-cheek.
Here's a little bit of the video.
We think that we'll corrupt your kids if our agenda goes unchecked.
It's funny.
Just this once, you're correct.
We'll convert your children.
Happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly, and you will barely notice it.
We're coming for your chips!
We're coming for your children.
We'll convert them bit by bit.
Very solid stuff there in this song.
We'll convert your children.
Yes, we will.
Reaching one and all.
There's really no escaping it.
Because even grandma likes RuPaul.
The world is getting kinder.
Gen Z is gayer than Grindr.
We're coming for them.
We're coming for your children.
The gay agenda is coming home.
The gay agenda is here.
Okay, so if this is tongue-in-cheek, like we're really not coming from your children, right?
It's tongue-in-cheek.
It's parodical.
Then why would the San Francisco Gay Men's Choir release the following statement?
This is their statement.
Claiming that everybody's taking this too seriously.
The negative, even threatening responses prove that this music and our mission are critically necessary in today's world.
Many children are not being taught the truth.
Our message to you from the gay community.
We will continue to do our best to counter the message of hate by teaching young people to be tolerant and fair.
It is obvious the tongue-in-cheek humor is lost on many, especially the ones spewing death threats.
Please take a moment and read the entire text.
We'll make an ally of you.
Yet, we are proud of who we are.
We are proud of what we sing.
Okay, the key sentence there is, So basically what you're saying is that the song is not actually a parody.
to do our best to counter the message of hate by teaching young people to be tolerant and fair.
So basically what you're saying is that the song is not actually a parody.
What you're actually suggesting is that while the song is done in the mode of parody, the underlying message, which is that we wish to teach your children our values, that part is correct, right?
We are making your kids more tolerant and fair by teaching them what we want to teach them in schools.
Now, you as a parent may object to this.
You as a parent may say, listen, I wish to teach my kids traditional sexual values and mores.
I don't want my, forget any of that, I don't want my kids, like K through six, I don't believe that it's appropriate for kids who are five years old to have to be taught about a wide variety of gender fluidity and sexual orientation questions.
It's confusing, it opposes natural law in the sort of traditional moralistic sense, but also in the logical sense.
The notion of gender fluidity opposes biology itself.
Like, I don't think that any of this is appropriate to be taught to children, regardless of political view.
It's just not appropriate for kids.
But the idea here is that we are going to change the next generation, right?
This is why, for example, there's an entire article recently in IndieWire, I think, talking about how children's animated shows were now being stacked with radical LGBTQ propaganda content.
Bisexual characters in children's animated shows.
Genderfluid characters.
Transgender characters in shows made for 5 and 6 year olds.
Right, so the left has a very different vision of what America, the radical left, has a very different vision of what America ought to be.
And the way that they are going to achieve this is by changing how your kids are taught.
And if you push back on them, then this of course makes you the true threat to the kids.
This makes you... Again, you want to separate the country.
This is the easiest way of separating the country.
Because, as I say, I'm going to educate my kids how I want to educate my kids.
And frankly, I am not interested in what the San Francisco gay men's choir thinks my kids should learn.
I don't really care.
They are not the parents of my kids.
They don't know my kid's name.
And they don't want what's best for my kids.
I want what's best for my kids.
And I get to decide that because I'm the parent.
The same thing holds true for Randy Weingarten and the American Federation of Teachers.
It holds true for the National Education Association.
It holds true for Joe Biden.
It holds true for all these members of government.
I get to decide how I want to teach my kids.
And what I would like to teach my kids, as it turns out, is a traditional sexual morality and traditional individual rights view of how the government should work with regards to both race and sex.
That's what I'd like to teach my kids.
And if you've got a problem with that, frankly, you can stick it.
So here's the thing.
A lot of this agenda is deeply unpopular.
And folks on the left know it's deeply unpopular.
And so they are left with basically one club left.
They are left with one club.
And that club that they've been using, and they're using it over and over these days, is January 6th.
They're relying more and more heavily on it.
Look at how many times Democrats mention January 6th.
It's day in and day out all the time.
We're going to get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the simple fact That you do not need to go to the auto parts store.
Who would want to go to the auto parts store?
You're standing in line, you're waiting there, finally you get to the front of the line, and then when you do get to the front of the line, they ask you a bunch of questions about your car, you have to look it up, you get the part, and then they're like, oh yeah, we're ordering it and we're upcharging it by 30%.
Or, you could just go online and do it yourself.
This is what rockauto.com does.
Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible, rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.
Well, I spend up to twice as much for the same parts.
They are a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
The catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brands, specifications, and prices you prefer.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
Again, that is rockauto.com.
Go check them out right now.
That is rockauto.com right now.
And make sure that you Say that the show sent you when you go to the how-did-you-hear-about-us box.
Best parts, best price, rockauto.com.
All right, we'll get to more in just one second.
First, Michael Knowles, as you know, has a new book out.
This one has words in it.
The book is called Speechless, Controlling Words, Controlling Minds.
If you haven't picked up a copy, now is the time to do it.
Tens of thousands of you already have.
The book takes you through the origins of PC and what its rapid spread through American society means for our future.
It'll give you the tools you need to understand and spot political correctness in order to stop it.
Now, here's the thing.
Knowles' book was the number one nonfiction bestseller in the country going into July 4th.
According to Publishers Weekly.
And sold like 20,000 copies in the first week of release.
It did not even make the New York Times list because the New York Times is a garbage organization and their list is politically skewed.
Just going to show exactly what he says, that if you cross the politically correct bosses, they will silence you.
If you don't know the history and relevance of PC already, you're about to.
Go do everyone a favor, pick up a copy of Speechless.
Controlling words, controlling minds.
It's available everywhere right now.
If you don't feel like making a trip, it's available on Amazon in hardcover and Kindle edition as well.
you're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So just a quick final note when it comes to the indoctrination of the kids.
Again, there's no bones being made about this.
The NEA, the single largest teachers union in the country, recently passed a resolution pledging to share and publicize information available on critical race theory while claiming that they're not teaching critical race theory.
openly say that they want to provide an already created in-depth study that critiques empire white supremacy, anti-blackness, anti-indigeneity, racism patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.
Okay.
When I say that they are coming to indoctrinate your kids, it is because they believe, quite correctly, that how kids are educated when they are young makes a difference in how they grow up and what values they hold.
And so they are attempting, the radical left is, to grab controls of your kids' education and then never to cede them to you again.
Now there are some people on the right who seem to believe that the way that you fight this is quote-unquote competition in the marketplace of ideas.
When you're talking about public schools, Where the curricula are established by the NEA and the AFT in coordination with state legislators.
This is not an option.
This is a zero-sum game.
Somebody is going to decide the standards.
Is it going to be you?
Or is it going to be a bunch of radical left theorists who have decided that your kids are going to be tools in their attempt to evolve society toward the views they like?
It was really interesting.
I mentioned it before.
There's an article in the New York Times in which they suggested, and when I say they, I mean a variety of authors, including a bunch of authors that I generally like, suggested that it's un-American for state legislatures to try and ban critical race theory.
They argue in the article that the educational mission is to help turn students into well-informed and discerning citizens.
And they say that this is undermined by restrictions banning the teaching of critical race theory.
So first of all, that ignores what critical race theory is.
It is an activist Ideology, openly.
Critical race theory says what it is.
The same thing is true with regard to teaching LGBTQ plus ideology in schools.
It is an activist ideology directed at changing traditional morals and standards.
That's what it is.
People don't make any bones about this.
Second of all, when we say that education is designed to help turn students into well-informed and discerning citizens, the word citizen doesn't just mean people.
Citizens has an actual definition.
The Aristotelian definition of a good citizen is a person who upholds the constitution of his particular polis, meaning political body.
If you teach your kids to be bad citizens in the Aristotelian sense, bucking against all of the systems, bucking against all of the traditions and values of the systems, you're not teaching your kid to be a good citizen, you're teaching your kid to be a bad citizen.
And you end up as a country with no future.
And so, again, I think that most Americans are beginning to wake up to this, and the left is beginning to realize it, and they're running a little bit scared because of it.
And so, you're suddenly seeing this upswell of articles from the New York Times, it really is amazing, in which they are openly defending the indoctrination of students into radical creeds.
There's an article in the New York Times today titled, A Private School Sex Educator Defends Her Methods.
After nine years at Dalton, why was Justine Angfonte suddenly being pilloried by parents?
The article is by Valeria Safronova.
quote, sex education is a sensitive subject.
But during nine years at the prestigious Dalton School on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, seven of which she spent as the director of health and wellness, Justine Ng Phan seemed to be handling it with success.
She developed curriculums for students from kindergarten through 12th grade, hired three other health educators and organized documentary viewings, discussions and workshops for parents.
She was also a regular speaker at educational forums like the National Association of Independent Schools People of Color Conference and offered workshops and presentations at other New York City schools.
One of these was Columbia Grammar and Prep School on the Upper West Side, which in May invited her to teach two Zoom sessions on pornography literacy and consent to its juniors and seniors.
Bill Donahue, the head of schools there, said, quote, There may have been confusion on our part about which course we would receive.
A couple of parents complained afterward, but there had been 120 students, many of whom gave her great feedback.
She didn't dwell on it.
About a week later, she woke up to find herself featured in the New York Post.
Quote, Students and parents reel after class on porn literacy.
Dalton parents enraged over masturbation videos for first graders.
The articles included screenshots from Ms.
Fonsi's lesson, A Possibility in the Zoom Classroom World.
Versions of the articles appeared in the Sunday Daily Mail and on Fox News.
Fante then resigned.
Multiple sex educators interviewed for this article said there was nothing inappropriate about her classes there or at Columbia.
It was all in line with the current national sex education standards and the WHO's international technical guidance on sexuality education.
The national standards are also used in public schools in New York City, where students in grades 6 through 12 take lessons on sexuality as part of their health education.
The material for first graders never used the term masturbation, Fante said recently.
The lesson was about private parts being private, and included a cartoon in which two characters use anatomically correct names for their genitals and say that sometimes it feels good to touch them.
Quote, it is okay to touch yourself and see how different body parts feel, but it's best to only do it in private, the narrator tells the viewers.
For kids between the ages of five and eight.
But, says the New York Times, the WHO is fine with this stuff.
The WHO likes it, so you should like it, as a parent.
Well, again, this sort of crap, it turns out parents don't like it.
And so the left is reeling because on culture issues, this is the thing.
Trump was elected because of culture issues.
He was not elected because of economic issues.
People seem to be of the opinion in the elite world, and this is true right and left, that Trump was elected because of his economic agenda, which was tariff focused or is focused on raising taxes on particular Parts of the population and was economic nationalist and was rooted in subsidies to blue collar workers and all this kind of stuff.
That is not correct.
The reason that Trump won is because the left has been declaring an open culture war on the rest of the United States since 2010, approximately.
It's been accelerating radically since then, and people are pushing back against it.
And now members of the left are beginning to realize that this is bad politics.
They don't want to say it because, again, that would undercut their evolutionary notions of how morality ought to change over time.
But instead, they are pushing back.
The way they are pushing back is chiefly with January 6th.
They understand, the left does, that what they are promoting, generally speaking, is not in line with traditional motions of patriotism.
Yelling about the American flag and the national anthem, suggesting that Motherhood is not a thing because after all, they're just birthing people.
Suggesting that there is no such thing as a traditional sexual value to be held in the United States and that if you do, you're a bigot.
Undermining religion and freedom of speech.
These are not things most Americans are on board with.
And so the left has to, they don't really want to seed the patriotic in the United States.
Instead, they would like to redefine patriotism to apply to an agenda that is explicitly anti-traditional notions of what it meant to be American.
Now rooted in individual rights, rooted in freedom, but also rooted in a certain sense of responsibility and virtue.
They would like to simply redefine patriotism to not mean that.
So the best tool they have to do this is to point at January 6th.
Because January 6th was an incident in which people who were purportedly right-wing, and when I say purportedly right-wing, I don't mean that they were left-wing.
They weren't.
What I mean is that they were not conservative in any traditional sense or libertarian in any traditional sense.
It turns out that storming the Capitol building is neither a conservative nor a libertarian position.
What the left would like to do is suggest that it is a conservative libertarian position.
Therefore, the true people who hate the country, the true people who are anti-patriotic, the true people seeking to undermine America, are not people who are radically indoctrinating your children with theories that are completely foreign to the founding of the United States.
The people who are really seeking to undermine America are right-wingers.
This has been the goal since January 6th.
January 6th was an act of evil by a bunch of idiot droogs who decided to run into the Capitol building for no discernible purpose other than to do harm to people and property and act like generalized idiots.
That's what January 6th was.
Nobody ripped it harder than I did.
It was really bad.
You know what is even worse for the country than a bunch of droogs running into a government building and then them being cleared out of the government building, most of them being arrested, and government going about its business within two hours?
You know what's worse than that?
The complete reshaping of American politics to suggest that anyone who is conservative or voted for Trump is complicit in that sort of activity and hates the country and is anti-patriotic.
And that's precisely what the media are doing.
So at the same time that the media are celebrating people who kneel for the flag, the media is suggesting that you, traditional conservative who likes the flag, You, traditional libertarian, who believes in individual rights, you are complicit in January 6th.
By dint of association, right, you may have voted for Trump.
Trump was saying stuff that wasn't true about the election.
People who believe that stuff went in and did something bad on January 6th.
Because of that chain of association, you are responsible.
Conservatism is anti-American.
This is the goal of the media.
Because this is the only pushback they've got.
Which is why you saw Chris Cuomo, for example, out there on CNN, suggesting that connecting celebration of July 4th to January 6th.
People who are flag wavers, many of those same flag wavers celebrated January 6th.
They're the true anti-patriots.
I must remind you tonight that we are marking six months since January 6th.
I know a lot of you are going to roll your eyes.
Do me a favor.
Roll them, but keep them open.
All right?
Because on that day, many who celebrated this weekend, saying they love this country, tried to destroy it.
And they're going to keep focusing on January 6th, because this is the only example they can point to of people who are purportedly right-wing or Trump-associated doing something bad and violent.
This is their big example.
And it's a great example of people doing something bad and violent.
The images are stunning.
There are attacks on police officers, obviously.
All of that happens to be true.
The part that's not true is that everybody who supported Trump was in league with this or approves of this.
But again, they keep trying to broaden out January 6th because if you just treat January 6th as what it was, an isolated incident in which a bunch of idiots, several hundred morons, decided to invade a government building and the security was improper, If that's what it boils down to, as opposed to a broad-based movement to overthrow the American government, then why are we still talking about it?
It turns out that a much broader movement involving violence happened last year and has now been deeply embedded in every institution of our society to the point where you have to mirror all of its priorities or you'll be ousted from public life.
Namely, the Black Lives Matter movement, which was linked to at least $2 billion in insurable property damage, probably it's double that because a lot of that property wasn't insured.
And linked to many deaths, by the way.
But the media have to, the media must, continue to focus on this and broaden it out.
Which is why you have an article called, A Horn-Wearing Shaman, A Cowboy Evangelist.
For some, the capital attack was a kind of Christian revolt.
Now the suggestion of that title, from Michelle Borstein, the suggestion of the very title is that Christianity is inherently intertwined with January 6th.
January 6th bad, therefore, Christianity bad.
How do we know this?
Because we found three people Who say that they were Christian who engaged in this activity.
Or cited their Christianity as a motivating factor.
Out of hundreds of people.
And those people are a mere subset of the hundreds of millions of Americans who count themselves as Christian.
But Christianity is bad.
And January 6th is bad.
And therefore, it's all the same.
And the maximization of January 6th has become a key A very, very key piece of the Democratic agenda.
If they can distract with January 6th, if they can continue to shout about January 6th, then maybe you won't pay attention to the stuff that's actually happening at your local school board level.
Maybe you'll ignore the fact that the radical left at the congressional level is attempting to rewrite the laws about how voting is done.
Maybe you'll ignore the fact that Joe Biden is explicitly attempting to override notions of individual rights and equality before law in favor of a broader equity agenda that adjudicates based on racial group.
Maybe you'll ignore all of that if we can just say that everyone who disagrees with Joe Biden or disagrees with the Washington Post or disagrees with the New York Times is somehow complicit in January 6th.
And so every story becomes a major story.
For example, the Daily Beast yesterday reported that one of the January 6th rioters, when he was arrested, the FBI seized a, quote, fully constructed US Capitol Lego set from his home.
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Robert Morris, a substitute social studies teacher, allegedly engaged in violent behavior.
Video shows him near the front line of the rioters who pushed past police guarding the Capitol, organizing a shield wall in the attack on officers in the Lower West Terrace Tunnel, and then entering the building through a broken window.
In court documents, apparently, the DOJ pushed for Morse to be detained until trial, and the federal government said during his arrest, law enforcement recovered some clothing and other items that appear to match those he carried with him on the 6th, including a Don't Tread On Me flag, a neck gaiter, a military utility bag, a black tourniquet, and military fatigues.
Also, law enforcement recovered a fully constructed U.S.
Capitol Lego set.
Wow.
Wait until they invade my house and they find out that my son has a fully assembled Death Star model.
Listen, it's fine.
You want to come with evidence of people who are rioters so they can go to jail?
Fine with me.
But I think you're going to have a hard time saying that it holds up in court that his beautifully constructed US Capitol Lego set was the motivating factor.
Really, really, really solid stuff right there.
Meanwhile, by the way, it is incredible to see how the media have completely flipped on law enforcement.
They flip back and forth on law enforcement.
So here's my opinion.
Law enforcement ought to be transparent.
People who attack law enforcement ought to go to jail.
The media's perspective is it sort of depends on who you are.
It sort of depends on what your political motivation is.
So if you are a black person who is resisting arrest and is shot by the police, Then the police must inherently be racist and it is indicative of the entire police structure, which is structurally biased.
If you're Ashley Babbitt and you're a white lady who's attempting to invade the Capitol building and you're shot to death, then anybody who wants to know the full information is bad.
Anybody who wants to know the full information is a problem.
We still don't know the identity of the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt, by the way.
Again, I understand the safety predicate for that.
We don't want the officer to be threatened.
And in fact, Ashley Babbitt should not have been climbing through a window at the Capitol building in an attempt to do harm.
She should have not been doing that.
That was a criminal activity.
I'm just noting the complete double standard with regard to behavior of the police and the way that the left treats the cops in these particular scenarios.
All of which is to say, when it comes down to it, the left requires January 6th.
They require January 6th.
But if they think that the election of 2022 or 2024 is going to be about January 6th, as opposed to the left's radical, asymmetric, it is asymmetric, political push to radicalize everything, every institution of our society, up to and including the indoctrination of small children, That's not going to work.
So watch for them to continue pushing it, but it is going to be unsuccessful in the long run because it turns out too many Americans are paying attention now, which is a very good thing.
All right, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content coming up soon.
The Matt Walsh Show airs at 1.30 p.m.
Eastern.
Be sure to check it out over at dailywire.com.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Elliot Feld.
Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Production manager Pavel Lydowsky.
Associate producer Bradford Carrington.
Host producer Justin Barber.
The show is edited by Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
Production assistant Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
On the Matt Wall Show, we talk about the things that matter.
Real issues that affect you, your family, our country, not just politics, but culture, faith, current events, all the fundamentals.
▲
Export Selection