Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2022 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:10:39

Fox News Betrays Conservatives By Pushing Trans Propaganda | Ep. 1513

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Fox News features an entire segment praising a family that transitioned a small girl.
	The Democratic Party tries to figure out how to dump Joe Biden on the side of the road.
	And Senate Republicans sign on to a gun control agenda.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	I talk about them every single show.
	Why haven't you gotten a VPN yet?
	Get ExpressVPN right now at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
	We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
	First, it's getting hot outside, like really, really hot down here in Florida.
	Summertime is upon us.
	That means it is time Or some summer grilling.
	And let me tell you about the best steaks available.
	I am speaking, of course, about the magic of Good Ranchers.
	If you're looking for the perfect cuts to put on the grill this year, check out my friends over at Good Ranchers.
	They actually got me a kosher steak last time I was in Nashville.
	Let me tell you, this thing was unbelievable.
	Good Ranchers is the place to get American beef, chicken, and seafood this summer.
	Meat prices have never been higher.
	The grocery stores are incredibly bare.
	Good Ranchers is giving away two free ribeyes, $100 value, to my listeners for a limited time only.
	You heard right.
	Go to GoodRanchers.com slash Ben.
	Use my code Ben.
	Get two 18-ounce prime center-cut ribeyes free with your order.
	Oh man, that is my cut.
	I love center-cut steak.
	Even amongst all this uncertainty in our supply chains, Good Ranchers guarantees 100% delicious American meat delivered right to your door for a great price.
	They'll send you what you want, when you need it.
	You can make a one-time purchase or subscribe and save $25 on every box.
	This is a limited time offer, so don't miss out.
	While other places will charge you over 50 bucks per steak for ribeyes like these, Good Ranchers is giving two of them away for free.
	These are USDA Prime 100% American steakhouse quality cuts of beef.
	They're out of their ranching minds.
	Go to GoodRanchers.com slash Ben.
	Claim your ribeyes today before they run out.
	Start the summer off right with Good Ranchers American meat delivered.
	Well, one of the things that we know here in the United States is that virtually every major institution in the United States is dominated by the hard left.
	And this is particularly true when it comes to social issues.
	The momentum that the social left has had for the Past several decades is just overwhelming.
	From corporate America to the government, from the educational system to the entertainment system, pretty much every institution in America is dominated by the left in extraordinary fashion.
	In this year's greatest indicator is the way that, for example, the pride progress flag completely overtook the pride flag within one minute of its proposition during gay pride month, LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign tilde pride month.
	Now remember, there used to be a gay pride flag that was just the rainbow.
	It was the same rainbow that Barack Obama so unifyingly showed on the White House in the aftermath of Obergefell.
	Because of course, if America stands for anything, it is for the proposition that all forms of sexual activity are morally equivalent.
	But that used to be the flag.
	The flag was just the rainbow pride flag.
	Then there was the proposition that it didn't include trans, and it also didn't include BIPOC people or something.
	And so you have the really, really ugly pride progress flag, which from an aesthetic perspective is just hideous.
	It's got the rainbow flag, but now it has this triangle that comes in from the side.
	So it looks almost like the Puerto Rican flag, but like with different colors.
	And it's really, it's really not an aesthetically pleasing flag.
	It was immediately taken over by every major corporation.
	Everyone started flying the pride progress flag within a minute, right?
	This thing did not exist two years ago.
	And today it is the only flag that has flown.
	The gay pride flag is now considered passe.
	We've moved beyond it.
	We've moved into a new world.
	The momentum with which that shift happened is just a monster of how quickly the cultural elites and all of these institutions pick up the most insane, radical arguments of the left and just mainstream them immediately.
	They don't think about them.
	They don't consider them.
	They don't determine whether these arguments are good or not.
	They just take them and they weaponize them immediately.
	And nowhere has this been truer than when it comes to radical gender theory and ideology.
	As I've talked about before, when it comes to LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign, a lot of the arguments in favor of T and Q run directly counter to the arguments for L and G. The arguments for L and G typically were, born this way, we were made this way, we can't help our activity, and therefore you should basically leave us alone in the privacy of our own bedrooms and that's it.
	And now the argument in favor of T is that there is no such thing as biological essentialism.
	Men and women do not exist.
	And also, men and women are not separate categories, which is the predicate for both L and G. All these arguments are in conflict with one another.
	The only way they are not in conflict is if you are directing them at a Judeo-Christian traditional moral superstructure.
	If you are taking all of these folks and saying, listen, I know you have nothing in common, but we have a coalitional approach to taking down Judeo-Christian morality, and so we are going to band together, despite our differences, in order to tear down that morality, then a lot of this starts to make sense.
	And a lot of the institutions of American society have bought in.
	Now, that means that if you are of traditional moral bent, if you're somebody who believes, for example, that natural law suggests that there are better and worse ways on a human level of conducting, for example, your sex life.
	If you are a person of traditional mores, who believes that sex should be defined within marriage, between a man and a woman, because sex is not merely about the physical pleasure that you get from sex.
	It is also about progeneration and creating a new generation of people.
	And it's about the fulfillment that male and female find in one another when they leave their parents' home and they create a family for themselves.
	If you believe any of that stuff, then the number of institutions upon which you can rely has been shrinking dramatically.
	And not only has it been shrinking dramatically, it's been shrinking in almost forceful fashion from the cultural arbiters.
	If you believe any of this stuff, the idea is that you must be censored.
	And if you believe even the basic propositions that undergird this stuff, like there are natural differences between men and women, those distinctions are the basis for all mammalian reproduction forever.
	If you believe that sort of stuff, then you are considered a bigot.
	Such that when What Is A Woman, Matt Walsh's new documentary, which is the number one streaming documentary in the United States from Daily Wire, it's fantastic, you should watch it.
	When it comes out, there's a hue and cry from wide elements of the media that we shouldn't be able to advertise this documentary.
	It hasn't been reviewed by any major reviewer in the United States, despite the fact it is the number one documentary in the country on any streaming service.
	Because the idea is it must be silenced.
	Now, here's the thing.
	This institutional takeover has real and serious ramifications.
	Because it turns out that when you churn out a bullhorn, and that bullhorn is just promoting propaganda that is anti-biological essentialism, that is churning out anti-natural law, anti-traditional morality, anti-rules, what you get is an enormous number of very confused and and emotionally dysfunctional young people.
	And that's precisely what you're seeing.
	You're seeing a radical increase in the number of people who are identifying as a member of the quote-unquote non-heterosexual community, the non-exclusively heterosexual community, and it is predominantly in liberal areas.
	What the polls show is that if you're a liberal, only about two-thirds of people who consider themselves self-considered liberal, younger Americans, consider themselves exclusively heterosexual today.
	As opposed to, you know, throughout human history, about 98%.
	And the reason for that is because so much of this is political.
	So much of this is about identity and about the belief that traditional structures of humanity are really, really bad, and those have to be torn down.
	And the more rules and rules that you shun, the more authentic you are in your very own person.
	And that is the propaganda that is being churned by the left day in, day out, all the time, without a doubt.
	And you can see proof of this.
	And Nancy Pelosi, for example, over the weekend, Nancy Pelosi was doing an episode of a drag race So the Speaker of the House of Representatives doing an episode of Drag Race because drag has now become a mainstream American phenomenon wherein we're all supposed to pretend that there is nothing role-violating, rule-violating, or morally pernicious about men wearing women's clothing and pretending to be women.
	We're supposed to pretend that that doesn't violate any sort of moral strictures.
	We're supposed to pretend that all of this is Essentially morally apathetic.
	We ought to be morally apathetic toward this stuff.
	Now again, I'm not talking about whether we should restrict this stuff by law for adults.
	That's a different question.
	I'm talking about whether on a moral level, it is generally good for men to dress like women and women to dress like men.
	I'm of the belief the answer is no, because men are men and women are women, and the sexual distinction between the two is quite important to a thriving and flourishing society, not a society in hedonistic, narcissistic decline.
	Okay, but Nancy Pelosi appears on Drag Race, and what she has to say about this is really quite astonishing, because it speaks to what the left believes is the unifying feature of America.
	Now, traditionally, the unifying feature of America, if you go back to the founding fathers, is the idea That we have liberty from government, but very strong social institutions that undergird that liberty.
	In the words of John Adams, you need a strong social structure because the Constitution was written, is the wording of John Adams, the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people only.
	Without that, the passions of the mob would run through the boundaries of the Constitution like a whale through a net.
	This has long been the idea of American liberty.
	American liberty was always undergirded by the idea of American virtue.
	These two came hand in hand.
	The notion was that only a virtuous people could be afforded liberty because a non-virtuous people with liberty was going to devolve into libertinism, which is not exactly the same thing.
	Well, we are there because the way that the left defines liberty is blowing up all the rules, blowing up all the rules.
	America to them is essentially the proposition that we can regulate every area of your life except when it comes to your self-definition.
	When it comes to your self-definition there, we not only have to Allow you to do what you want to do on a governmental level, which, you know, is arguable.
	But we have to cheer it on a cultural level.
	We have to cheer it and forward it.
	And that's what America is really all about.
	America is about drag queen story hour and drag race, according to Nancy Pelosi.
	It is not about a virtuous people upholding their virtue through the exercise of liberty, particularly at the local level, by building community and by having freedom from government for entrepreneurialism and self-definition in communal terms.
	That you end up with a better America?
	No, the idea is that what America really is about is high taxes, gun control, abortion, and drag races.
	So here's Nancy Pelosi talking about what makes America special.
	Give a warm drag race welcome to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
	These are all men dressed as women.
	And there's Nancy Pelosi walking out.
	Everybody's real happy.
	My honor to be here to say to all of you how proud we all are of you.
	Thank you for the joy and beauty you bring to the world.
	Your freedom of expression of yourselves in drag is what America is all about.
	I say that all the time to my friends in drag.
	I'm sorry, this is dystopian stuff.
	It really is.
	This is what America's all about.
	We're so proud of you, men, for shirking all of your male societal roles and embracing dressing like women on national television.
	That is Nancy Pelosi.
	It's not just a thing that people do and that we ought to tolerate as a society because people act in ways that we don't like, but we don't want government to have enough power to crack down on that stuff because government with too much power can harm all of us.
	That's not the argument.
	The argument is this is an active good.
	You're adding truth and beauty to society by having men appropriate the costumes of women and then pretend to be women for purposes of television ratings.
	This is what America is all about, says the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
	And, of course, this bleeds down to the local level, to the point where now you have an entire cadre of Americans who believe that it is good to show small children men dressed as women.
	And not just men dressed as women, men dressed as women gyrating sexually in front of small children.
	So, for example, over the last weekend, you had a family-friendly drag queen event in Austin, Texas, which is a contradiction in terms.
	There's no such thing as a family-friendly drag queen event.
	There just isn't.
	I'm sorry, the idea that men and women exist and that these are roles that are important to the flourishing of a society is so... that the fact that this even has to be defended in intellectual terms demonstrates that we are a culture that is in a state of complete collapse.
	There are certain things that people just know, and it's okay to just know them.
	This is the point that Michael Oakeshott makes about rationalism.
	And we live in a society where people feel the need to rationalize all of their All of the rules and rules that they've inherited.
	Well, can I come up with in my head why this is important?
	Now, it's important to try and reason out why a historic institution exists and whether it can be changed.
	But if the idea is that we are starting tabula rasa and that the burden of proof is on the people in favor of the rules to defend the rules, that the burden of proof is not on you to explain why the rules should be destroyed, then you have completely destroyed society.
	Because again, society is rooted in all of these fundamental rules and roles.
	So there's nothing wrong with saying, I don't want my child viewing men who dress up as women and gyrate around on a stage.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	And not even in sexual terms.
	You can say, listen, I think that boys should dress as boys and girls should dress as girls.
	And that is an active good.
	I believe that's an active good.
	I don't think, not only do I think there's nothing wrong with that, I think it's quite important because kids need rules.
	They need boundaries.
	They need guides.
	It turns out that civilization is something you have to teach to children.
	You have to civilize kids.
	But apparently this is now considered passé, so you have family-friendly drag queen events in places like Austin, Texas.
	Does this seem family-friendly to you right here?
	A bunch of men dressed as women dancing around with each other wearing Scanty clothing, grinding their asses against one another.
	This seems very family-friendly to me, doesn't it?
	This is family-friendly stuff right here.
	Really, it's a family-friendly drag queen event.
	And by the way, if you think that we are not spending money on this sort of stuff, public money on this sort of stuff, you would be wrong.
	According to the New York Post, over $200,000 is being spent on drag queen shows at New York City schools.
	We're a society that now says it's good for small children to see all of this.
	If all of this makes you wonder about the future of Western civilization and maybe makes you consider your own mortality, well, you know, why not use that as impetus to do something useful like get life insurance?
	PolicyGenius is your one-stop shop to find the insurance you need at the right price.
	Head on over to policygenius.com slash Shapiro to get started in minutes.
	You can compare personalized quotes from top companies to find your lowest price.
	You could save 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with PolicyGenius.
	The licensed agents at PolicyGenius are on hand Through the entire process to help you understand your options and make decisions with confidence.
	The PolicyGenius team works for you, not the insurance companies.
	PolicyGenius does not add on extra fees.
	PolicyGenius does not sell your information to third parties.
	PolicyGenius has thousands of five-star reviews across Google and Trustpilot.
	And PolicyGenius has options that offer coverage in as little as a week and avoid unnecessary medical exams.
	Since 2014, Policy Genius has helped over 30 million people shop for insurance and placed over $150 billion in coverage.
	Head on over to policygenius.com slash Shapiro, get your free life insurance quotes, see how much you could save.
	It is the responsible thing to do if, God forbid, something were to happen to you.
	Would your family be taken care of?
	If the answer is no, head on over to policygenius.com slash Shapiro.
	To fix that right now, that's policygenius.com slash Shapiro.
	So the left, their favorite thing to do, as some of the more nationalist conservatives say, and they're exactly correct on this, what they say is, it's not happening and it's good that it is.
	The argument is, why are you focusing in on all of this stuff?
	Because it's not happening.
	And also it's really good and important that it is.
	And you should subsidize with your taxpayer dollars.
	And Nancy Pelosi should talk about how this is the best of America.
	And so should the president of the United States, Joe Biden.
	So according to the New York Post, New York is showering taxpayer funds on a group that sends drag queens into city schools, often without parental knowledge or consent, even as parents in other states protest increasingly aggressive efforts to expose kids to gender-bending performers.
	Last month alone, Drag Story Hour New York City, a non-profit whose outrageously cross-dressed performers interact with kids as young as three, earned $46,000 from city contracts for appearances at public schools, street festivals, and libraries, City Records show.
	Since January, the group has organized 49 drag programs in 34 public elementary, middle, and high schools.
	It boasted on its websites with appearances in all five boroughs.
	Since 2018, the group has received a total of $207,000 in taxpayer cash.
	So, New York City, where you might be pushed in front of a subway and also Your taxpayer dollars will be used to indoctrinate kids in the joys of gender bending, which, of course, generally makes people's lives a lot worse.
	There's a minority of people for whom this is fulfilling and who lead a happier lives because of this.
	And that is called a minority of people.
	It's a very vast minority of people throughout human history.
	Flourishing societies rely effectively.
	Again, it is beyond insane that I have to explain this to people.
	A thriving society must have differences between men and women.
	Those natural differences between men and women are baked in.
	They're not just baked into the cake with regard to human beings.
	They're baked into the cake with regard to primates.
	They're baked into the cake with regard to all mammals.
	To pretend that societal rules that have evolved over the course of thousands of years are completely arbitrary and specious and made up by the evil patriarchy is to ignore biology.
	It is to ignore history.
	It is to ignore how evolution works.
	It's to ignore everything in favor of a pie-in-the-sky, cloud-cuckoo-land perception of reality in which you get to throw away all of the institutional pillars of society in favor of these idiotic ideas you have in your head.
	And then you're shocked when kids are wrecked by this.
	And you're shocked when you have wildly skyrocketing rates of mental health problems among young children.
	Why would this happen?
	Well, because of you!
	Because you decided that all the guardrails should be removed.
	And it turns out that basically what childhood is is sliding down a very curvy mountainside in the rain in a car that doesn't have any sort of tread on the wheels.
	And what you as a parent are supposed to do is you are supposed to line up in front of your child so that that slide down the mountain into adulthood is slow.
	And you're also supposed to make sure beforehand that there are guardrails around the road so the kid doesn't fall off.
	We've removed all the guardrails, and then we have said that any adult that is in front of the kid to prevent that car from just skidding right off the road is now an impediment to that child's self-fulfillment.
	So as that child flies through the air off the road, we're supposed to pretend that, look, the kid's flying.
	No, the kid's falling.
	The kid's falling because of you.
	And this is what our society has done in every element.
	And again, this all bleeds down from the idea That it's not just about tolerance for people who live different lifestyles.
	It's not just about tolerance for people who have different emotional or sexual orientations.
	It's not about any of that.
	It's about celebration.
	The entire society must celebrate.
	Not only must the entire society celebrate, the entire society must propagandize on behalf of this sort of activity.
	So for example, I mean, this is insane.
	Postmates is a company that delivers things to you, right?
	You order food via Postmates.
	That was my impression.
	I was not aware that Postmates was actually a BDSM site teaching you about anal sex, but apparently that is what Postmates is now.
	So Postmates, in honor of Pride Month, Put out a video and a tweet, essentially telling people what to eat.
	I've been informed by my producers that this is what this commercial is about, because frankly, I found it somewhat puzzling.
	Apparently, this is about what kinds of food you ought to eat so as not to have messy diarrhea before you engage in anal sex.
	This is being promoted by Postmates.
	Postmates was bought by Uber in a $2.65 billion all stock deal back in 2020.
	This is an enormous American company.
	And it is propagandizing on behalf of anal sex.
	And it's marketing.
	It's a food company.
	It's a food delivery company.
	Here is what this looks like.
	If you're a top, it seems like you can eat whatever you want.
	But if you're a bottom, you're expected to starve?
	Not this pride.
	Introducing the bottom-friendly menu from Postmates.
	We teamed up with Dr. Evan Goldstein from Bespoke Surgical to bring you a menu of bottom-friendly foods backed by science.
	The problem with these foods is they don't dissolve in water, which could cause a traffic jam in your digestive system, making a mess of your evening.
	Soluble fibers and protein are the key to having some good, clean fun.
	These all digest easily and slowly while feeding your good gut bacteria, which makes sushi a great bottom-friendly option.
	There's no right or wrong way to bottom, but if you're planning on getting peachy this pride, the bottom-friendly menu on Postmates has the kinds of foods that can keep you feeling good.
	Are you organic?
	Mm-hmm.
	So, yeah, you have your major American corporations now stumping in favor of, um, in favor of anal sex.
	So, yes, it's all about the celebration.
	It's all about—I mean, by the way, they then defended that on Twitter.
	By saying, quote, exactly, we're tired of heterosexual sex being the main focus of sexual education.
	Homosexual sex, specifically bottoming, are all too often omitted and stigmatized.
	Not this year.
	Happy pride.
	Bottoming, by the way, is presumably the description of a person who is the receiving partner in anal sex.
	We're tired of heterosexual sex being the main focus.
	First of all, I'm not aware that there should be widespread sexual education in the first place via our public institutions, given the fact that for literally hundreds of thousands of years, people and all mammals, as it turns out, figured out how to procreate without some dumbass gender theorist explaining to them how a penis goes into a vagina.
	But instead, we're tired of heterosexual sex being the main focus of sexual education.
	Again, it is all about the notion that traditional moral structures are bad and inhibiting, and all forms of sexual activity are morally equivalent.
	And this is being pushed by the greatest forces in our society.
	And now, there's one group of people who you would imagine would not push this stuff.
	There's one group of folks you would imagine should not push this stuff, and that would be conservatives.
	And if you are a conservative, then you should be pushing in favor of the idea that sex is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and it should be restricted to the confines of marriage with the person with whom you are presumably trying to have kids, as a general rule.
	The person with whom you're okay having kids.
	The person you have decided to create a life partnership with.
	The family matters.
	Sex is an important, romantic, wonderful piece of a larger relationship that you have with your heterosexual spouse.
	This is a general notion in conservatism that has been upheld by literally all of human history and evolution.
	But!
	Apparently, now, the institutions of our society have become so corrupt that even conservative institutions, purportedly conservative institutions, are pushing propaganda.
	If all of this insanity is keeping you up at night, let me recommend that you get a Helix Sleep mattress, because otherwise you're never going to sleep again.
	I mean, after viewing that ad, you might never sleep again anyway, but if you are going to sleep, The only way for that to happen is for you to get a personalized mattress made just for you.
	That's why Helix Sleep is there.
	Helix has a quiz.
	It takes just two minutes to complete.
	It 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 is 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.
	Mattress is great for spinal alignment to prevent morning aches and pains.
	Even a Helix Plus mattress for plus-sized sleepers.
	I took that Helix quiz.
	I was matched up with a mattress model that is firm and yet breathable, which is exactly what I need.
	Because if the mattress isn't firm, I get back pain, and if it's not breathable, I can't sleep.
	If you're looking for a mattress, you take the quiz, order the mattress you're matched to, that mattress comes directly to your door.
	Shipped for free.
	You don't need to go to a mattress store again.
	They've got a 10-year warranty.
	You can try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix even has financing options and flexible payment plans, so a great night's sleep is never far away.
	For a limited time.
	Helix is offering up to 350 bucks off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
	This is their best offer yet.
	Hurry over to helixsleep.com slash Ben to get started.
	And this brings me to, again, this is the most disturbing thing that I have seen in quite a while.
	Not because of what it says.
	I've seen this sort of content on CNN, MSNBC, Good Morning America for that matter.
	But because of where this appeared.
	So this appeared on Fox News on Friday.
	And the fact that this appeared on Fox News A purportedly conservative network that stands for the values of traditional American conservatism and believes in Judeo-Christian values.
	And that it is propagandizing openly on behalf of transing small children.
	Because that's what this segment is.
	It was a five minute segment about why it is not just okay, it is good to try to turn your little girl into a little boy.
	And I want to go through it in detail because it is suggestive of how the insane amorality and immorality of the left have completely penetrated mainstream conservative institutions.
	Because everybody is so afraid of just saying no.
	This was on Fox News, and this is unbelievable to me.
	It's unbelievable to me.
	And frankly, as Matt Walsh has said, if I don't appear on Fox News because I'm saying this, well, so be it.
	But somebody is going to have to call out the fact that this is too important an institution for the right to simply let it go.
	It really is.
	Again, if MSNBC or CNN did this segment and be like, OK, well, that's par for the course.
	But Fox News, there are few enough conservative outlets and Fox News being the largest, it kind of matters.
	If Fox News starts embracing the radical left gender ideology that the left espouses, it's no longer conservative and it can't be trusted.
	Honest to goodness, I don't know what they're thinking, but this is insane.
	So this appeared on Fox News on Friday.
	If you saw me walking down the street, you wouldn't think anything different.
	14-year-old Ryland Whittington is a typical Southern California teenager.
	And the Whittingtons, along with mom Hillary, dad Jeff, and sister Brindley, are a typical family.
	The only difference, though, in Ryland's eyes, is what this family can mean to the tens of thousands of kids under 18 who identify as transgender.
	We put our story out there so people could See that, like, there's another family out there that is going through what we're going through, or there's another family who's proud of who they are.
	Before Ryland could even speak, he managed to tell his parents that he is a boy.
	I could just see it.
	It wasn't him trying to be a brat.
	It was, like, painful.
	It was really painful for him to have to wear feminine clothing and for us constantly telling him that you're a girl.
	Okay, pause it for a second, please.
	This is insane.
	Before Ryland could speak... Again, this is on Fox News.
	This is Fox News saying it is good to trans the children.
	Before the kid could speak...
	She was saying she didn't want... First of all, since when do two-year-olds make decisions?
	Okay, I have a two-year-old.
	My two-year-old this morning, I went into her room, and she was lying in her crib, and she had a large pee-filled diaper.
	And I said, is it just pee or is it poo?
	And she said, it's pee.
	And naturally, there was poo inside.
	Is this the kind of person you want making decisions about their lifelong quote-unquote gender identity?
	Should I take my two-year-old seriously when she expresses her needs, wants, and desires?
	Because if I did, she'd be wearing her sky pajamas all day long.
	Every day.
	Dirty.
	Filled with urine.
	So, no.
	My two-year-old does not get to make decisions.
	I love her.
	She's sweet.
	She's two.
	It's because I love her that there are rules.
	And because I am the parent.
	But here's Fox News promoting the idea that kids, before they can speak, can pick membership in the opposite gender.
	Kids don't even know the alphabet at this point.
	The kid literally, it says in the report, does not know how to talk.
	Does not know how to talk!
	And the parents are like, oh, well, that must be the opposite gender.
	Which means that this is Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
	That's all this is.
	These parents have decided that they wanted to trans their kid.
	And because they wanted to trans their kid, they were going to make up... How do I know this?
	Because by the time this kid was five, mom was writing books and going on national TV about this.
	By the time the kid was five... That's about the parents.
	That's not about the kid.
	Horrible for this little girl.
	It's insane.
	And Fox News promoting it.
	When Ryland came out at age five, a few years later, he had the full support of his parents.
	Initially, there was some pushback from us in trying to understand this.
	We were confused like most people are.
	We thought that gender and sexuality were the same thing.
	It took us a while to figure out that those two things are different and that children actually do recognize their gender identity very young.
	Some of them, not all.
	But they listened to Ryland and to Hillary's conservative faith.
	For me, it's just a deep spiritual belief.
	Stop it right there.
	This is just open propaganda.
	Hillary's conservative faith?
	Really?
	Tell me about how her conservative faith says there's no such thing as male or female and boys can be girls.
	Please explain.
	Please explain how conservative faith tells you.
	Again, now we're speaking of faith context, and when we talk about transgenderism, I don't cite the Bible, but when you start talking about conservative faith, which suggests to me some sort of biblical adherence, how do you explain the opening of Genesis, which specifically says male and female he made them?
	Please explain how your conservative faith says By the way, the Bible specifically says men are not to dress like women and women are not to dress like men.
	Please explain how it is that you believe that your conservative faith justifies taking a baby girl and turning him into a socially transitioned baby boy who will always be a girl and who will now spend the rest of her life In this conflict with her own biology.
	And this is what Fox News is pushing.
	This is insane.
	Insane and insulting to its audience and insulting to reality, by the way, because the whole thing is just pure propaganda, as we will see.
	If you believe in God and he, you know, created us the way he wanted us, well then yes, he created Ryland just the way he is.
	And... Oh, so that's why he needs... Sorry.
	That's why he created Ryland the Ways, which is why we're going to need to put puberty blockers in Ryland's... So God created this.
	We need to put puberty blockers in it.
	And also, maybe add a penis later on and cut off healthy breasts through a moustache.
	If we go through a full transition, this is where it's going.
	Full-on hormonal suppressants, testosterone treatments, pumping hormones into the body, changing the body's construction, changing the health outcomes, cutting off healthy breast tissue.
	Because that's the way God made it, says mom, with her conservative faith, on Fox News.
	They met in support groups.
	There was a father who was sitting across the table.
	He says, you have no idea how lucky you are to be here, which kind of took me back.
	I didn't at that point consider myself lucky to be there.
	And he said, you know, our child had displayed this gender dysphoria or this gender misalignment at the same age that Ryland has.
	And we didn't listen.
	And we pushed back.
	That, for me, was the turning point.
	to turn to self-harm as a teenager, which 60% of trans and non-binary kids engage in, according to the Trevor Project. More than 50% consider suicide.
	That for me was the turning point. I didn't want to see Ryland to go through that.
	I'd rather have a living son than a dead daughter.
	This is propaganda, okay?
	That's pure Trevor Project propaganda.
	The idea that your choice is between a suicidal girl and a perfectly happy boy is nonsense.
	It's nonsense.
	Longitudinal studies show the suicidal ideation rate among LGBT youth is way higher than among cisgender youth, like way higher, and it remains that way no matter the treatment.
	No matter the, so if you take a kid who is confused and you refuse the possibility of desistance, which is what happens for the vast majority of kids who have gender questioning at young ages, the vast majority, somewhere between 75% and 90% of kids who have gender questioning at a young age will grow out of it.
	Many of them turn out to be gay, but many of them grow out of it, whether it's gay or straight, whatever.
	When you stop that, when you start socially transitioning a child and reinforcing in the child the notion that this kid is mad, what do you think that kid's going to do?
	Now the kid has to stand up to mom and dad in order to say, no, actually I am a girl.
	This is madness.
	And I'm not going to get over the fact that this is on Fox News, because it demonstrates how the mainstream institutions of our society, including the ones that you may trust as a conservative, are now stabbing you directly between the shoulder blades with this kind of stuff.
	We had pushed back and done what a lot of parents do.
	I don't think that we would have either one of the kids that you see before you here today.
	Allowing him to live authentically and true to himself and be who he really feels like he is.
	When you get to know Ryland, you see just how proud and confident he is of himself.
	Rylan's story got international attention in 2014 when a family YouTube video went viral.
	And Hillary has since written a book called Raising Rylan.
	Okay, pause it there.
	There's a shock.
	In 2014, this kid is now 14.
	Okay, I may not be amazing in math.
	The kid is 14.
	That means he became an international superstar trans kid at age 6.
	At age 6.
	Does this seem like safe parenting to you or does this seem like child abuse?
	Taking a small kid, socially transitioning a small kid at the age of six after saying the kid was exhibiting the notion that she wanted to be a he before she could talk and then you're writing books and going on national TV Does it seem like really on Fox News?
	Okay, keep going.
	I never thought that I would be known for this like as well as I am but Really, it's just a small part of who I am He's just brushed things off his shoulders like it's fine he moves on in his life and he's just kind of think everything we've been through he's just like learned to do that and he's really good at it.
	I could never do that.
	The Whittingtons believe sharing their story could make a lasting difference in another child's life, something they learned from that support group father nearly a decade ago.
	I'm just here to make the ride smoother for others.
	You might be struggling right now, but we believe in you, this family.
	We might not know you, we might not know where you live, but, you know, we understand you and we believe in you.
	Just a pure propaganda piece.
	What extraordinary courage displayed by Ryland, his sister Brindley, father Jeff, and mom Hillary.
	I want to thank the Whittington family for speaking to us.
	It's not easy, particularly at a time when transgender issues have been politicized.
	People are afraid of what they do not understand, Dana.
	This family hopes their story will lead to more understanding, more acceptance, and ultimately, more love.
	Just pure propaganda.
	Pure, insane propaganda.
	What if we do understand your agenda?
	What if we are afraid of is the agenda because the agenda is garbage, and because it's harming children, and because it's deliberately promoting propaganda that is based not in science, but in ideological nonsense rooted in opposition to Judeo-Christian values, and traditions, and mores, and rules, and roles.
	What if that's what we are concerned about?
	And what if we're particularly concerned when it starts taking over major American conservative institutions like Fox News?
	If you're a Fox News viewer, you should think very seriously about whether you wish to give a company that promotes this kind of stuff your business.
	Seriously, I want to watch Fox News.
	I'm friends with a huge number of people who work at Fox News, including most of the hosts.
	And I know that most of the hosts do not agree with Fox News becoming a propaganda outlet on behalf of the most radical left agenda on this sort of stuff.
	They can't.
	There's no way they do.
	I've talked to many of them, and I know they don't, as a matter of fact.
	The fact that management, I assume, crammed this down or went ahead with this because this was greenlit.
	It was a fully produced segment, which cost Fox money.
	It's a betrayal of Fox's audience.
	It's a betrayal of many of the people who work at Fox.
	And more than anything, it's a reinforcement of the deep rot that has taken place at the core of our institutions, including in many conservative institutions, which are either too cowardly to defend values that matter or have joined full scale in the attack on those values.
	All right, in just one second, we're going to get to Joe Biden, who apparently is now being thrown on the side of the road for dead by his own party.
	Well, folks, when we talk about the insanity of our current cultural moment, let me just remind you, what is a woman is changing that culture.
	It's a massive success.
	It's changing the entire conversation.
	Finally, people are beginning to ask serious questions about whether a boy can be a girl or a girl can be a boy.
	And maybe the pushback has begun to the extent that You know, when outlets like Fox News push propaganda on this sort of stuff, you can push back, too.
	It's a must-see.
	Be sure to watch it.
	Whatisawoman.com if you haven't already.
	Tomorrow, June 14th, The Daily Wire is premiering another amazing piece of content.
	Our brand new film, Terror on the Prairie.
	So, we made you a promise.
	Remember, when Disney Plus canceled Gina Carano for the great crime of being conservative?
	Well, two days after Gina was cancelled, we announced she would be starring in and producing our next original film.
	And tomorrow, June 14th, we are keeping our promise.
	The full uncancelling is upon us.
	Gina is celebrating the premiere of her brand new film with The Daily Wire, Terror on the Prairie.
	We proved they can't cancel us if we don't let them.
	Tear Around the Prairie is a gritty Western.
	Gina's personal redemption story shines through in her leading role.
	She doesn't pull any punches, that is for sure.
	I'm really excited for everybody to see the film.
	It's a good old-fashioned Western without the wokeness.
	It is produced by our friend Dallas Sonnier.
	He's the one who brought you Bone Tomahawk with Kurt Russell, so this dude knows how to shoot a gripping and authentic Western.
	Go to dailywire.com slash Gina.
	Tune in tomorrow at 8.30 p.m.
	Eastern for the pre-show, 9 p.m.
	Eastern, for the world premiere of the film.
	Stick around for a Q&A following the film.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash Gina right now.
	Again, that's dailywire.com slash Gina.
	We made you a promise.
	We are gonna fight Hollywood.
	We are going to bring the fight to them.
	We uncanceled Gina Carano, and we can only do that with your help.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash Gina to watch Terror on the Prairie tomorrow night.
	It's gonna kick ass.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Meanwhile, Joe Biden is finding himself basically on the outs with his own party for good reason.
	He's no longer sentient.
	There's an entire article in the Washington Post today talking about how many Democrats are starting to wonder whether Joe Biden should run in 2024.
	It's like, OK, first of all, you guys, some of us said he was too old and he wasn't with it and he was incompetent back when he ran in 2020.
	And you assured us everything was going to be fine.
	And now Grandpa can't get out of bed.
	And every morning they have to remove the intubation tube so he can go out there and be wheeled out there and sounds can fall out of his face that make no sense.
	And then the night nurse crew comes in and cleans up after him from the comms office.
	And you're telling us that he shouldn't run?
	Yeah, we said that the first time around, gang.
	According to the Washington Post, midway through the 2022 primary season, many Democratic lawmakers and party officials are venting their frustrations with President Biden's struggle to advance the bulk of his agenda.
	Doubting his ability to rescue the party from predicted midterm trouncing and increasingly viewing him as an anchor that should be cut loose in 2024.
	As the challenges facing the nation mount and fatigued base voters show low enthusiasm, Democrats in union meetings, the back rooms of Capitol Hill, and party gatherings from coast to coast are quietly worrying about Mr. Biden's leadership, his age, and his capability to take the fight to former President Donald Trump a second time.
	Interviews with nearly 50 Democratic officials from county leaders to members of Congress, as well as with disappointed voters who backed Mr. Biden in 2020, reveal a party alarmed about Republicans' rising strength and extraordinarily pessimistic about an immediate path forward.
	To say our country was on the right track would flagrantly depart from reality, said Steve Simeonidis, a Democratic National Committee member from Miami.
	Mr. Biden, he said, should announce his intention not to seek re-election in 24 right after the midterms.
	Most top elected Democrats were reluctant to speak on the record about Biden's future.
	No one interviewed expressed any ill will toward Biden, to whom they are universally grateful for ousting Trump from office.
	But the repeated failures of his administration to pass big-ticket legislation on signature Democratic issues, as well as his halting efforts to use the bully pulpit of the White House to move public opinion, have left the president with sagging approval ratings in a party that, as much as anything, seems to feel sorry for him.
	So things aren't going well.
	That's great. David Axelrod says, quote, the presidency is a monstrously taxing job. The stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term, and that would be a major issue.
	Axelrod says Biden doesn't get the credit he deserves for steering the country through the worst of the pandemic, passing historic legislation, pulling NATO together.
	And part of the reason he doesn't is performative.
	He looks his age.
	He isn't as agile in front of a camera as he once was.
	This has fed a narrative about competence that isn't rooted in reality.
	No, it's rooted in reality.
	We have historic inflation rates.
	We have a foreign policy in tatters.
	We have an ongoing war in Ukraine with no available end or turnoff.
	We have Afghanistan turned over completely to the Taliban.
	We have a domestic American political scene that is completely disunified and polarized.
	I can't imagine exactly what's happening here.
	I mean, why is he so unpopular?
	It's so confusing.
	It's also, like, how could he be unpopular?
	It's almost impossible to imagine why.
	Like, for example, he has this inflation rate that is now 8.6% this month.
	It was supposed to be reversing.
	It's not reversing.
	It continues to peak.
	And Joe Biden, his solution is, what if I blame the GOP for inflation?
	The GOP, which is currently in control of zero elected branches of government at the federal level.
	This is not your father's Republican Party.
	This is a different deal.
	It really is.
	I've worked with a lot of honorable Republicans, very conservative Republicans over the years when I was a senator.
	But this is the MAGA gang.
	This is the MAGA crowd.
	I really mean it.
	They have a fundamentally different view of the role of government and who should pay what.
	Yes, they believe, the ultra-MAGA, ultra-MAGA, super-MAGA, super-duper-MAGA crowd, they believe.
	What they believe is that you're terrible at this, and that inflation shouldn't be at 8.6%.
	That's it.
	By the way, then Joe Biden decides he's going to blame Vladimir Putin for the inflation.
	Which is weird, because Vladimir Putin is not responsible for any of the inflation prior to his invasion of Ukraine, which only happened in February.
	Inflation started literally the month that Joe Biden took control of the reins of government.
	Today I'd like to speak about my top economic priority, fighting inflation.
	I understand Americans are anxious, and they're anxious for good reason.
	I was raised in a household when the price of gasoline rose precipitously.
	It was the discussion at the table.
	It made a difference when food prices went up.
	But we've never seen anything like Putin's tax on both food and gas.
	Okay, you're a fool if you believe this.
	And he believes you're a fool, so he thinks he can get away with this.
	And here's the biggest problem of all.
	No one trusts him to fix this stuff because you can't trust him to get through a full paragraph.
	Without words falling out of his face hole that make no sense whatsoever.
	So here is Joe Biden.
	He was asked about a visit to Saudi Arabia.
	Now, everybody knows he's going to Saudi Arabia basically because he blew it in the Middle East.
	He decided to take sides with Iran against Saudi Arabia.
	And this led to Saudi Arabia refusing to acquiesce to his request for more oil.
	And now he's going to have to go kowtow to Saudi Arabia because it turns out we have a major oil shortage.
	And one of the reasons we have a major oil shortage is because Russia wants a war in Ukraine.
	Meanwhile, we're attempting to get Russia to draw a deal up with us in Iran.
	So now he's going to have to go and he's going to have to Backtrack with the Saudis.
	Now in this clip you're going to see Joe Biden in the course of this clip say that he does not know if he is going to Saudi Arabia and then within 15 seconds say that he's going to Saudi Arabia.
	Have you decided, sir, whether to go to Saudi Arabia?
	No, not yet.
	What would be holding up the decision at this point?
	Are there commitments you're waiting for from the Saudis or on the negotiations over people?
	No, no.
	The commitments from the Saudis don't relate to anything having to do with energy.
	It happened to be a larger meeting taking place in Saudi Arabia.
	That's the reason I'm going.
	And it has to do with national security for them, for Israelis.
	I have a program.
	Anyway, it has to do with much larger issues than having to do with the energy.
	He's not with us.
	Are you going to Saudi Arabia?
	No, not yet.
	Have you made a decision?
	No, not yet.
	That's why I'm going to Saudi Arabia.
	Why oh why are Democrats fed up with him?
	I can't imagine.
	By the way, if you think that they have anything waiting in the wings that isn't a disaster, you're out of your mind.
	Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary?
	Yeah, good luck with that.
	Really going to draw the black voters out with Pete the Buttigieg.
	Kamala Harris, the worst politician ever created in the laboratory?
	She looks like, have you seen these doll E-minis?
	Where the AI tries to come up with images and kind of puts them together.
	And it looks like that time that there was a guy who tried to repaint the fresco of Jesus in Italy.
	And it just looks like a weird face.
	Like that's what happened with Kamala Harris.
	They put her into a not fully developed AI.
	And what came out was this bizarre politician that is living directly in the middle of the uncanny valley.
	They're gonna put her up instead of Joe Biden?
	Bernie Sanders, who's 1 million years old.
	He's even older than Joe Biden.
	The only thing about Bernie Sanders that seems to be attractive is the fact that he's a grumpy socialist who doesn't understand what bread lines are.
	These are your people.
	These are the folks you're going to put up instead of Joe.
	They need Joe Biden.
	Without Joe Biden, it's even worse for them.
	It's a disaster area.
	Meanwhile, I got AOC out there saying that she's not even going to commit to backing Joe Biden if he runs in 2024.
	You know, if the president chooses to run again in 2024, I mean, first of all, I'm focused on winning this majority right now and preserving a majority this year in 2022.
	So we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
	But but I think if if the president has a vision and that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain and examine when the time comes.
	That's not a yes.
	Yeah, you know, I think we should endorse when we get to it.
	But I believe that the president's been doing a very good job so far.
	And, you know, should he run again?
	I think that, you know, I think it's... We'll take a look at it.
	But right now we need to focus on winning a majority instead of a presidential election.
	By the way, there's a better shot that she runs than that Joe Biden runs in 2024, given what's going on right now.
	So the Democratic Party is in a state of complete disrepair.
	One of the reasons they're in a state of complete disrepair is, of course, because of the inflation.
	According to the Wall Street Journal, Federal Reserve officials have spent two months getting investors acclimatized.
	To their plans to slow economic growth and combat inflation by raising interest rates in half-percentage point increments until price pressure is cool.
	This coming week's policy meeting will show whether officials are still comfortable with that approach in light of reports Friday that inflation sizzled in May, hitting a new 40-year high, and that consumers' longer-term inflation expectations rose to a new 14-year high.
	This survey measure is important to central bankers because they believe such expectations can be self-fulfilling, right?
	If you think inflation is going up and you own a business, You're going to continue to raise your prices, which is going to necessitate you raising your wages, which is going to create even more of a wage price spiral.
	While some analysts think Fed Chairman Jerome Powell could surprise markets with a larger-than-anticipated rate increase of 0.75 percentage points, such a move remains unlikely because it would be a notable departure from how the central bank has conducted policy this year.
	The bigger questions Wednesday center on how high officials see rates rising this year and next, and whether Powell opens the door to a 0.75 percentage point rate increase at the central bank's July policy meeting.
	Fed officials said in recent weeks they were likely to follow an anticipated half point rate rise this coming week with another one in July.
	That was before Friday's reports.
	So basically they said, oh, we've got this under control.
	We're going to be able to, you know, make sure that we that we kind of even out the economy while tamping down inflation.
	It looks like they are not having any sort of success with that.
	Meanwhile, the housing market is cooling.
	So, as mortgage rates go up, not surprisingly, as inflation rates go up, as people have less disposable income, as they're paying over $100 every time they go to the pump if you got a minivan...
	As that happens, fewer and fewer people are buying homes.
	You're starting to see people's real estate values crash, which is a real problem for a lot of folks because a lot of people are going to end up with loan-to-value ratios that are underwater.
	So you end up with a secondary subprime mortgage crisis, right?
	You're going to get a lot of people who can't pay that mortgage because it turns out that as the economy starts to stagnate, their real estate is worth less than the mortgage that's on the real estate if the economy starts to peter out.
	So there's a real problem here.
	It's not going to end up like subprime, which had infected every portion of the economy, but for a lot of people, Who are looking to buy into the real estate market or who are looking to their real estate to act as a gauge of their wealth.
	This is a real problem.
	And so all of this is a disaster area for the Democratic Party.
	And so they are, again, going back to the well.
	And when they go back to the well, what they find there is January 6th and gun control.
	So they plan on another January 6th hearing today.
	This January 6th hearing is, frankly, less than interesting.
	I'm kind of shocked at the lack of beef in any of the Democratic hearings thus far.
	And Liz Cheney proposed, and we have heard from Democrats, they have evidence, one, that Congress people sought direct pardons from President Trump for their activity in January 2020, which again, does not go to whether they actually did criminal acts.
	They could just be idiots.
	They could be like, um, maybe it was criminal for me to support your agenda here.
	And, uh, and so if I could have like a preemptive pardon, that would be great.
	It doesn't mean they were actually committing a criminal act.
	Anybody can seek a pardon preemptively at any time for anything.
	Again, that makes them idiots, but it doesn't necessarily make them criminals.
	Also, they've shown no evidence of that.
	The bigger thing that they said that they had evidence of, the January 6th committee, they said that they had full-scale evidence that there was coordination between the people who rioted and people in the Trump administration.
	They've offered no evidence to that effect so far.
	So they've created a massive oversell here.
	And that oversell, I mean, they're now out there saying that they think that the DOJ, maybe they should indict.
	Okay, but the problem is they haven't even alleged a crime yet.
	Like, at a certain point, you have to allege a crime in order for any of that to happen.
	So, what exactly are they doing today?
	Again, they had one shot at this in primetime.
	The ratings in primetime were actually worse than a normal night in primetime at that time on the networks.
	Like, significantly worse, despite the fact that there was blanket coverage of this thing.
	About 19, 20 million people watched that.
	In terms of network plus cable, normally it's about 23, 24 million people who are watching at that time.
	So they actually saw some audience drop off during the January 6th Bonanza extravaganza.
	So today, they are going to have in a bunch of people who are going to testify as to what?
	Nobody really knows.
	So they have a couple of witnesses.
	Bill Stepien, Trump's 2020 campaign manager.
	And Chris Steierwald, Fox News' former political editor who defended the network's decision to call Arizona for Biden before its competitors did and was fired by the company in January of 2021.
	So what exactly are they going to reveal?
	Exactly.
	Are they just going to reveal that Trump had no evidence to back his election fraud suppositions?
	I mean, we kind of knew that already.
	Whether or not you believe that ballot harvesting or changing of the rules was really the problem, what Trump was alleging was full-scale voter fraud.
	I mean, he's alleging that right now about Brian Kemp beating David Perdue by 50,000 points.
	So when Donald Trump says voter fraud decided an election, suffice it to say, I do not trust him on these issues because he has not proved that he is I would say in any way deliberate about what kind of voter fraud he chooses to allege.
	So they're having Bill Stepien, the former campaign manager, and Chris Steierwald.
	Does he have information about the riots that we didn't know about?
	And then the second panel has three witnesses.
	Benjamin Ginsberg, a renowned Republican election lawyer who helped craft the GOP Florida's recount strategy, and Jay Pack, a former U.S.
	attorney based in North Georgia who was pressured by Trump to pursue bogus election fraud allegations, and Al Schmidt, a former Republican city commissioner in Philadelphia who was on the board that oversaw the city elections.
	Apparently the common theme according to committee aid was we're going to hear testimony from government officials who are the ones who look for the fraud by how the effort to uncover these baseless allegations bore no fruit.
	Simply the fraud they were looking for didn't exist.
	What does this have to do with demonstrating any sort of legislative oversight purpose with regards to a congressional investigation?
	That's a political matter, isn't it?
	I mean, I think that politics of this has been pretty clear for a pretty long while about whether the election of 2020 was decided on the basis of voter fraud or not.
	Like, everybody has taken a side on this.
	So what are they attempting to establish?
	What they're attempting to establish, of course, is that for 2022, don't vote Republican because they're going to overturn elections, right?
	This is what they're attempting to establish.
	But they're overselling.
	And when you oversell and then you don't come up with it, it's a problem.
	Jamie Raskin, who's one of the ones leading the charge, The Democratic lawmaker who actually objected to the 2016 certification of Donald Trump's votes, ironically enough, he says that everything they're doing is currently based on the evidence.
	Does anyone believe this?
	They said for four years that Adam Schiff had deep and abiding evidence that there was some sort of Russian collusion leading to Trump's election in 2016.
	So do I believe Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff in this crowd?
	I'm not sure why I should, given their background here.
	Everything we're doing is documented by evidence.
	Unlike the big lie, which is based on nonsense, as former Attorney General Barr said, everything that we're doing is based on facts, and this is a bipartisan investigation, which is determined to ferret out all of the facts of what happened.
	Okay, and then Raskin was asked, should the DOJ indict Trump?
	Now, here's the thing.
	The DOJ has the ability to do its own criminal investigation, and they have much more power in terms of subpoena power and criminal investigatory power than a congressional committee does.
	They haven't indicted under Merrick Garland, which suggests they don't have evidence of a crime.
	So here's Jamie Raskin kind of futzing around.
	I mean, they keep alleging that Trump's a criminal.
	At a certain point, you're going to have to demonstrate that he actually committed a crime, not just that he did something immoral or bad or that he lied or that he raised the level of rhetoric.
	None of that stuff.
	You can actually have to demonstrate if you're making criminal allegations like he coordinated to create the riot.
	You're going to have to back that with something.
	Here's Jamie Raskin basically admitting they got nothing.
	Do you believe that the Justice Department should indict the former president?
	You know, one of the conventions that was crushed during the Trump administration was respect by politicians for the independence of the law enforcement function.
	And so I'm going to try to observe that.
	Attorney General Garland is my constituent, and I don't browbeat my constituents.
	I think that he knows His staff knows, the U.S.
	attorneys know what's at stake here.
	They know the importance of it, but I think they are rightfully paying close attention to precedent in history as well as the facts of this case.
	They're providing no new actual evidence, right?
	So far, what they have presented is evidence that Trump was derelict during the two and a half hours that the rioters were in the Capitol building, which we kind of knew the day of because we were all there.
	Bill Barr, who has not been shy about his criticisms of Trump, right?
	I mean, he said in his book, On my show, in committee testimony, that he thought that Trump's election fraud claims were, in his words, bull bleep.
	But even Bill Barr's like, I'm not seeing evidence of a crime here, guys.
	I haven't seen anything that makes me think the President committed a crime.
	What's come out so far has generally been known before.
	There are a few things that were new.
	But I do think there are legitimate areas of inquiry, but I also agree with the Congresswoman that this isn't set up as an optimal mechanism for getting at the truth, and there is obviously a big political overlay.
	But, you know, I think it's legitimate to explore whether or not there was a plan to use violence to stop the vote.
	And if there was a plan, was the president involved?
	I haven't seen anything up to now that makes me think he was.
	And I personally doubt it.
	OK, so even Bill Barr, who's been a strong critic of Trump during this time, he says they're not going to.
	So again, where is the beef?
	If Democrats are hoping that they're going to be the American people are going to shift based on this.
	Good luck with that.
	Meanwhile, Democrats are also pushing gun control.
	A bunch of Republican senators, 10 Republican senators, have now signed on to a basic gun control proposal in the Senate.
	The House passed legislation that would raise the age to buy a rifle and that would create all sorts of new regulations on quote-unquote assault weapons, which just means like a rifle they don't like.
	A bunch of Republican senators have now signed on to a piece of gun control legislation.
	We haven't actually seen the text, so it's hard to adjudicate whether the text is going to be objectionable or not, because what's in the text actually matters a lot more than the broad framework proposal.
	One of the big problems here is that many of the broad framework proposals, number one, are state-level, right?
	I mean, red flag laws are a state-level issue.
	They really are not a federal issue.
	But also, when you have a loss of trust in institutions, this is a major problem.
	When a lot of the American public feels that you are going to basically Call them unable to hold a weapon based on their politics.
	It's going to be very difficult to get public support for something like a red flag law.
	There has to be a baseline level of trust that the arbitrating institution, when it comes to who deserves not to get a gun, is being honest in its assessment.
	That it's not just going to be somebody who like looks at your Facebook page and sees that you have five rifles and says, well, you know, he shouldn't have five rifles.
	And then they report you to the local authorities.
	And now the red flag law means that you're deprived of your guns.
	And there have to be some real safeguards in place.
	We have to know that the people who are adjudicating the situation are actually going to be objective in how they adjudicate the situation.
	So here are some of the things that are being proposed that the 10 Republican senators have signed on to.
	And again, it's hard to tell what exactly is going to be in the bill until you know what's in the bill, and they haven't actually released any text of the bill.
	Support for state crisis intervention orders provides resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others consistent with state and federal due process and constitutional protections.
	Well, that's going to be the question is how consistent with state and federal due process.
	investment in children and family mental health services, national expansion of community behavioral health center model, major investment to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs, other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery.
	Now, again, I'm in favor of more funding for mental health services, because frankly, we just have a bunch of people who are not mentally healthy living on the streets in the United States.
	And that is not a kindness to them, nor is it a kindness to the taxpaying citizen.
	However, what you actually need here is a change in state law with regard to involuntary commitment.
	Because it seems the vast majority of these shooters are people who should have been involuntarily committed.
	Because when you let them out on the streets, it's not a matter of them voluntarily walking into a clinic and seeking mental health treatment.
	They don't want to do that.
	The question is what you do when you have a mentally ill person who doesn't actually want to go and get the treatment they need.
	Can you involuntarily commit?
	This bill does not do anything about that.
	Some of this bill is somewhat unobjectionable.
	So, for example, they want enhanced background checks for minors so that your juvenile delinquency records, your juvenile records for criminality, get put into the system.
	Makes perfect sense to me.
	There's also the suggestion that there should be a ban on convicted domestic violence abusers and individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders in the NICS.
	Well, depending on how that's defined, again, I don't think that's wildly objectionable.
	There's funding for school safety resources.
	They're penalties for straw purchasing.
	So if you're illegally purchasing weapons, we're gonna have to see what the text of this looks like.
	But here is the thing.
	The Democrats are not gonna be satisfied with any of this, of course, right?
	Any sort of consolidated consensus bill, they're not gonna be happy with.
	So Joe Biden, he says he's gonna do the bill, but then he says, well, we got to keep marching to make this an election issue, which is really what he wants out of this, of course.
	Do you have a message for those that have marched for our lives for gun safety today in Washington?
	Yes, keep marching.
	It's important.
	Look, this has to become an election issue.
	The way people listen, Senators, Congress, others, when people say, this is going to affect my vote.
	Too many people are dying, needlessly.
	And what's even being proposed in the House and Senate is marginal.
	I mean, it's important, but it's not all that needs to be done.
	I mean, by the way, again, I don't trust these folks because, for example, and we talk about red flag laws.
	So the ex-global Jason Campbell of Media Matters, whose job it is, he has the best job in the world.
	He gets paid to watch this show.
	That's a pretty awesome job.
	And normally you have to pay to watch this show, but he actually gets paid to watch this show.
	Back in 2019, he put out a clip of me talking about the fact that if Beto O'Rourke tried to take my children away from me on behalf of, for example, LGBTQ indoctrination, Then I would meet him at the door with a gun, which I would, right?
	Because any sentient parent would.
	And Eric Swalwell, who was screwing a Chinese spy, by the way, and now sitting on committees where he sees classified material, this dumbass, he tweeted, please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun.
	Reason 1578, America needs red flag laws.
	You wonder why people doubt red flag laws?
	Maybe it's because if I express a political opinion different than yours, you want to take away my guns and call me mentally ill.
	By the way, I own three guns and I intend on giving up none of them because I'm a perfectly law-abiding citizen who pays more taxes than pretty much everybody does in this country.
	And you wonder why I'm concerned about red flag laws?
	That would be one reason.
	That would be one reason.
	And when Joe Biden says, keep marching, keep up, because we, it's not just a slippery slope.
	All this is, it's going to be, you pass some gun regulations that are likely to do very little.
	And again, I'm not against all of these things.
	I'm just pointing out what the politics of this are.
	You're going to pass some gun regulation.
	It's likely not going to prevent the next shooting.
	Because none of the gun legislation you've pursued so far has prevented these kinds of statistical anomalous, statistically anomalous shootings.
	And then you're going to yell at us about how we haven't done enough.
	Which, by the way, is exactly what the people that Joe Biden is pandering to are saying.
	This March for Our Lives featured, now, ex-Gonzalez.
	She used to be Emma Gonzalez.
	Now she's they-them, wearing earrings that say, Black Lives Matter, calling herself ex.
	And she says, she's ranting about guns at this March for Our Lives.
	These are definitely the people we should have guiding our Second Amendment policy in considered and intellectual fashion.
	Refugees are subject to racist attacks and white supremacist terrorist insurrection almost killed a lot of you in office currently.
	Did you f***ing forget that?
	If any of this had happened in another country, you would have used it as an excuse to colonize and drop bombs.
	But when it happens here, you replicate it and maintain.
	You think we don't see that?
	You want to be helpful?
	You want to make this world a better place, Congress?
	There's one thing that you in office can take away from this speech.
	It's pass the f***ing gun laws!
	Pass some f***ing gun laws.
	Okay, but that's not the point.
	Because no matter how many laws are passed, we all know what the final agenda is.
	By the way, they don't want just any gun law.
	You have David Hogg, who rode his Parkland fame into Harvard based on zero actual intellectual credentials.
	And now, This one.
	He's out there saying that no more cops in schools.
	Cops in schools are bad, says David Hogg.
	These are the folks that Joe Biden is saying need to march.
	It's all political.
	The reality is putting more cops in schools hasn't worked, and it won't because it only is going to keep... Let's think about who actually is made more safe by that, but also realize that putting more cops in schools actually may be a form of endangering our students as well.
	The cops endanger the students?
	The students that don't have the privilege of having my skin color.
	Okay, these ones.
	This is who you should pander to.
	And no matter what these Republicans vote for, with their Democratic colleagues, it ain't gonna satisfy this crowd.
	Because in the end, what this crowd actually wants is what Justin Trudeau wants.
	So Justin Trudeau up in Canada, with the quote of the day, he says that in Canada, you do not have a right to use a gun in self-defense.
	Which is a fundamental breach of the contract between any citizen and his state.
	If they decide they're going to monopolize the use of force to the point where I cannot even defend myself in my home with a gun, then you have lost all power to be my government.
	We have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada, and there are lots of gun owners, and they're mostly law respecting and law abiding, but you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
	That's not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.
	If you try and buy a gun and say it's for self-protection, no, you don't get that.
	You get it for hunting, you can get it for sport shooting, you can take it to the range, no problem, as long as you go through our rigorous background checks.
	Okay, there's no right to self-defense in Canada?
	Amazing.
	But this is what they want.
	So understand that whenever Democrats stump for normal gun legislation, if they actually meant it, then they might stop talking about how they wish to end the Second Amendment, but they're not going to talk about that because we all understand what the actual goal is here.
	And if you think you're winning an election in 2022, based on January 6th, and we would like to take all the guns if we could, Good luck with that.
	Speaking with the needs of the Democratic Party, they have to distract from inflation.
	As we've been saying, they have to distract from the economy.
	The reason for that, the economy stinks.
	Joining us on the line to discuss is my friends from Birch Gold.
	As you all know, when it comes to the economy, we are very worried here on The Ben Shapiro Show about inflation and the future of the stock market and all the rest.
	And as you also know, Birch Gold, they're some of our best sponsors.
	Joining us on the line right now is a precious metals specialist from Birch Gold, Philip Patrick.
	Philip, thanks so much for joining the show again.
	Thank you for having me.
	So let's talk about the latest inflation statistics.
	So finally, Janet Yellen, a great soothsayer, she has finally admitted that she was wrong about inflation from the Treasury Department.
	It is not transitory.
	Why is she saying this now?
	Look, it was on the back of a meeting.
	She had a meeting with Biden and Jerome Powell, and it was on the back of that meeting that she came out and said, look, I think I was incorrect about the path inflation would take.
	Quite frankly, I don't think she has a choice.
	It's very clear to everybody now.
	Inflation is not transitory.
	It's here to stay.
	And she was wrong.
	On the back of that, though, Biden now has a plan, in inverted commas, to tackle inflation.
	So we should all be at ease, of course.
	So what exactly does that plan look like, given the fact that all of his plans so far have not been particularly good?
	Yeah, well, it's very consistent with all of his plans so far by the looks of it.
	So that's the positive news.
	So essentially, there are three prongs to the plan.
	The first is to let the Federal Reserve do their job.
	Uh the second is to lower the cost on essentials and the third is to reduce the budget deficit now on the surface it appears to be a workable plan but as you and I know the devil is always in the detail and it's when you start to break it down It gets concerning.
	So first point, let the Federal Reserve do their jobs.
	It's exactly what we've been doing, right?
	For the last two and a half years, they've been doing their job and it's been under their stewardship that we have 40-year high inflation.
	It was this Federal Reserve that dismissed it as transitory for so long.
	So it's a bit of a head-scratcher, that one.
	The second is to lower cost on essentials.
	This one's very concerning.
	Look, on the surface, we want to lower inflation by lowering inflation.
	It makes sense.
	But it's when you understand how he wants to do it, because it all boils down to spending money, right?
	They want to improve infrastructure.
	So we're back there again.
	We've already signed in a trillion dollar infrastructure package.
	He wants to I'm a post clean tax energy credits he wants to lower the cost of child care all of this stuff is expensive right and it was spending that's gone enough into the position where and finally he wants to reduce the deficit again very much make sense.
	My concern, though, is this guy six months ago was pushing through massive spending packages, telling us that it was going to lower inflation.
	So my question is, which one is it?
	You cannot have it both ways.
	My big concern here is that there isn't a desire here.
	This is political.
	He's paying lip service to the idea of lowering inflation and at the same time pushing through massive spending packages.
	And ultimately, if he gets his way, it's going to compound the issue.
	It is dangerous.
	And Philip, a lot of these are the short-term risks to the United States economy.
	Some of the longer-term risks to the United States economy include this massive national debt, the fact that we have blown out the spending.
	When he talks about reducing the deficit, we are still spending more money than we have ever spent in the history of the United States, except for just the COVID bailouts.
	You know, the fact of the matter is that you have economists who are now predicting that you may have a stock market that flails around for 10 years.
	I mean, that has happened in American history before.
	Essentially, from the mid-60s until the early 80s, the stock market just did no business.
	And there are some economists who are saying that The sort of stagnation that may be setting in right here could be something similar.
	It's very reminiscent of the stagflationary climate in the 1970s.
	We have stunted economic growth.
	We have inflation raging in the background.
	And quite frankly, I don't think we have the tools to truly stem inflation like we ultimately did in the 70s.
	We have too much debt.
	And that's the big issue.
	I want to talk through some numbers very quickly.
	Even with the debt as it is today, it's barely sustainable based on debt service payments.
	2011 to 2018, US debt service payments $272 billion a year.
	From 2019 to 2021, that increased to $379 billion.
	it's $272 billion a year.
	From 2019 to 2021, that increased to $379 billion.
	It's a 43% increase.
	Now, with the 2022 budget, it's projecting a trillion dollar deficit per year for the next decade.
	That means 10 years from now, U.S.
	national debt $40.5 trillion.
	Debt payment or service payments, interest payments, would be $941 billion.
	59% of the annual budget deficit.
	Now, here's the kicker.
	This is all based on funds rates staying where they are.
	And as we know, interest rates are increasing.
	A 1% increase adds $30 trillion over the next 30 years.
	And that would be, by the way, 70% of all US.
	tax revenue consumed by debt service payments.
	A 2% increase means that 100% of all U.S.
	tax revenue is consumed by debt service payments, and that's 30 years from today.
	So, this is the problem.
	What we are doing today, we're digging a hole that's going to be almost impossible to get out of.
	We have to stop spending.
	We've got to stop pushing it through for short-term political gain.
	It's an unsustainable issue.
	I'm speaking with Philip Patrick of Birchgold.
	So, Philip, obviously with investors trying to figure out exactly where to put your money, what are some of your recommendations as far as where to store value right now, given the fact that the stock market is not particularly solid?
	People are pulling money out of their own investments right now.
	What do you recommend?
	Look, it's a tough climate.
	We've got even Jamie Dimon now, the CEO of JPMorgan, coming out and saying, look, this is going to be a hurricane.
	And as you sort of Intimate.
	It's a tough climate to navigate, right?
	We have a stock market that is declining and it appears to be the tip of the iceberg in terms of downside.
	Bonds showing no reprieve, right?
	They're not paying any interest.
	We've got inflation eroding that and more.
	So options are limited.
	Precious metals, very conducive for climates like this.
	They are commodities, so inflation drives them up.
	They're safe haven assets.
	So when markets decline, people flood to them.
	So very conducive for climates like this.
	And I think everyone needs to be thinking about hedging their exposure.
	Well, that is Philip Patrick with Birch Gold.
	If you want to get involved with them, ask all of your questions, get all of your answers.
	If you're interested in diversifying at least a little bit into the one asset that has never been worth zero gold, text Ben to 989898.
	Secure your savings right now.
	Philip, thanks so much for the time.
	Thank you.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with more content.
	In the meantime, go check out our newest podcast, Morning Wire.
	On today's episode, they report on the summit of the Americas exposing waning U.S.
	influence.
	That episode is available right now on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
	Make sure to tune in.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Bradford Carrington, Executive Producer Jeremy Boren, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Production Manager Pavel Wydowski, Associate Producer Savannah Dominguez-Morris, Editor Adam Sajevitz, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina, Hair and Makeup Artist in Wardrobe Fabiola Cristina, Production Coordinator Jessica Kranz.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
	John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
	Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire, where we bring you all the news that you need to know in 15 minutes or less.

▲