Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 20, 2022 - The Ben Shapiro Show

41:41

Apparently, I’m Very Scary | Ep. 1578

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation unleashes an article blaming me for violent extremism, an FBI whistleblower says the government has distorted the January 6th attack into broader domestic extremism pseudo-crises, and a Democratic sheriff launches an investigation into Ron DeSantis shipping illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Thousands of my listeners have already secured their network data.
	Join them at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
	We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
	First, you're spending way too much money on your cell phone coverage.
	I'm sorry to break that to you, but if you are using Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, they take way too much of your money every month because they're also promising you more data than you will ever need.
	That's pretty concerning because right now you don't have that money to waste.
	So why not shift over to PeerTalk?
	Pure Talk will give you a myriad of choices so you can choose the data plan that's right for you.
	Whether that's 2 gigs per month or an unlimited plan with a mobile hotspot.
	By switching over to Pure Talk, the average family of four is saving over $75 a month.
	Customers are realizing they simply don't need as much data as they thought they did.
	Plus, Pure Talk makes it easy to find the right plan for you and your family.
	They're a veteran-owned company with a customer service team based right here in the United States.
	They make the switch from your current provider incredibly easy.
	It's not going to take you more than 10 minutes, and it is well worth the savings.
	Join the hundreds of thousands who are making the switch to PeerTalk today.
	Plus, this month, when you switch to PeerTalk, you get one month for free.
	So what are you waiting for?
	I've been endorsing PeerTalk for two years.
	They've never made an offer this big.
	Just head on over to PeerTalk.com, choose your plan, enter code SHAPIRO for this special offer.
	Again, start saving money, switch over to PeerTalk.com, enter code SHAPIRO, get one month for free.
	Also, you've heard a lot about Helix Sleep because that's how I sleep, but that's not the only way that I rest.
	I also have an Allform sofa.
	Helix has now left the boudoir.
	They are entering the living room with Allform.
	That new company, Allform, is ready to make the best sofas in the game.
	Allform sofas are American-made, easy to assemble, scratch and stain resistant, stylish, and comfortable.
	Allform sofas are modern yet timeless seating pieces that come in a variety of sizes, shapes, and configurations.
	They're easily customizable.
	They cost a fraction of what you would pay in traditional stores.
	They are designed to be flexible and adaptable.
	They are modular, so that means that you can start off with a couch of one size and then you can actually grow the couch.
	Plus, all form sofas are shipped directly to your door.
	They can be assembled in just a few minutes with no tools necessary.
	And if getting a sofa without trying it actually sounds kind of risky, well, you don't need to worry.
	You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it, which is more than three months.
	If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free.
	They will give you a full refund.
	Yeah, the same people make Helix.
	So you know that what they are doing is good stuff.
	Allform is offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash ben today.
	Step up yourself a game.
	That's allform.com slash ben to get 20% off your order today.
	Well, once again, apparently I'm a very scary person.
	I'm a very scary person, it turns out, because a lot of people watch shows like this one.
	People watch this show, people listen to this show, people watch clips of me saying things on the YouTubes.
	And according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is essentially the NPR of Canada, this is a state-funded enterprise, a left-wing state-funded enterprise in Canada, apparently All of my speech should probably be banned, because after all, people might watch my stuff, and then there's an off chance that they might then see even worse stuff, and then that might lead them down a rabbit hole to the super, super bad stuff.
	There's an entire article on the CBC website titled, It's a Slippery Slope, How Young Men Fall into Online Radicalization.
	By the way, it is fun to watch how the left treats slippery slope arguments when they're coming from their side.
	When the right says, you know, if you go along with civil unions, eventually it'll be gay marriage.
	And if you go along with gay marriage, eventually it'll be attempting to force people to accept same-sex marriage in religious schools.
	Then that's a slippery slope we cannot abide.
	Even if the slippery slope completely materializes.
	But apparently, it is fully okay to make a slippery slope argument when I say something that is not extreme.
	It's possible to make the argument that somebody might view that and then see something that's a little more extreme, a little more extreme than that, and eventually they end up being a Nazi.
	This is the case the CBC is about to make.
	Quote.
	Reed Brown remembers the first time he got sucked in by the algorithm.
	He was just 13, watching videos after school when YouTube started pushing him to controversial content.
	As time went on, the videos became increasingly extreme, says Brown, now 21.
	It started out pretty benign, he recalls.
	You're watching something about teen fashion, and then the next thing you know, the algorithm would push you to a Ben Shapiro video.
	Oh, no.
	Though Shapiro describes himself as a conservative political commentator, his views are controversial.
	Is there another way to describe me other than as a political commentator who is conservative?
	Is there another description that is more apt?
	What they want to say here, of course, is that I'm alt-right.
	The problem is that people in the media, including the economists, have attempted to call me alt-right before, and we have then threatened them with legal action because the alt-right hates my guts, and I have ripped the alt-right routinely doing full speeches about the alt-right, and so they've had to retract such statements.
	So instead, they say, well, I call myself conservative, but you know what they would call me.
	They would call me an extremist, which goes to show you that if they call me an extremist, you're definitely an extremist as well.
	Shapiro describes himself as a conservative political commentator.
	His views are controversial.
	Some are outright discriminatory.
	Wow, I didn't know that.
	What are my discriminatory views?
	It seems to me that I've always been of the viewpoint that, for example, people should be treated as individuals, not based on their race or their religion.
	I thought that that was, like, basic to my worldview, actually.
	But it turns out, according to the CBC, that some of my views are outright discriminatory.
	He suggested, for example, that transgender people suffer from a mental disorder.
	Oh, you mean me and the American Psychiatric Association?
	Like, in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5, it literally labels gender dysphoria a mental disorder.
	Because it used to be called gender identity disorder.
	You mean that?
	So it's now discriminatory to say that people who have gender dysphoria, in fact, suffer from a mental disorder.
	Which they clearly do, since it is labeled as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, as politicized and left-wing as the DSM is.
	But apparently that's discriminatory, guys.
	We have to pretend that men who say they are women are actually suffering from some sort of mind-body misalignment.
	And the problem is with their bodies.
	So if we just chop off some body parts, then magically they're a woman because their brain is the brain of a woman.
	Now, you might have to have a mental disorder to believe that, but that's actually not science.
	But if I say that, it's apparently discriminatory.
	Says the CBC, Shapiro has combined 9.4 million subscribers and followers on YouTube and Twitter, many of whom are young people.
	No, not the youths!
	Not the youths!
	Like Brown was when he got pushed in Shapiro's direction.
	Well, Shapiro is not affiliated with any hate group.
	Experts, ah, the ever-present experts in media, gender studies, and radicalization of young men say the commentator's content is prevalent in online extremist communities.
	They're saying, openly, there's no evidence that I'm affiliated with a hate group because I'm not affiliated with a hate group, and they have no evidence of it because it doesn't exist, but they do have experts.
	And who are these experts?
	Who are these massively influential, important, and very expert experts?
	Who are they?
	They're experts in media!
	Wow!
	How do you even get that hat?
	How do you earn the expert in media hat?
	Do you go to like a journalism program?
	A journalism-ing program at a top university?
	Taught by other professors?
	Who have failed out of the media because they weren't able to hold a job?
	And now they're academics and all they do all day long is talk about the media.
	But they don't actually have an audience like we do here on this show.
	They just sit in an Ivy League boardroom and discuss their expertise in front of students.
	Is that what they do?
	They're experts, by the way, in gender studies.
	Well, experts in gender studies.
	That must mean that they believe a bunch of crap that isn't true.
	But then they get to churn out little versions of themselves who then become the professors.
	Because you can't actually get a real job.
	If you major in gender studies, you ain't getting a real job doing anything.
	That is not a major that qualifies you for anything except being a professor in gender studies.
	It is a fully self-perpetuating cycle of uselessness.
	Also, experts in the radicalization of young men.
	So, I assume these are people who study, like, you know, Islamic terror, for example.
	But no, actually, it just turns out that radicalization of young men just means that people, they don't like what I say.
	The exposure to controversial and increasingly harmful views.
	Harmful!
	This is the keyword for the left.
	Harmful.
	As we will see, this is how you criminalize speech.
	The way that you criminalize speech is you say, speech is harmful because if my feelings are hurt, you have You've harmed me.
	You've aggressed against me.
	And thus, you must be shut down.
	I mean, it's the equivalent of me, like, hitting you with a baseball bat or something.
	The exposure to controversial and increasingly harmful views about masculinity, the objectification of women, and the LGBT community has these same experts raising concern about how extremist far-right groups are using TikTok, YouTube, and other social media apps in a drip campaign to slowly radicalize vulnerable teens and young men.
	Okay, so, I just have a couple of questions about that particular paragraph.
	They say, exposure to controversial views about masculinity.
	What are my controversial views about masculinity?
	What are they?
	That men exist?
	I don't think that men should finish high school, get a job, get married, and take care of their kids without abandoning them?
	Is that the controversial view about masculinity?
	Is the controversial view about masculinity that men should be responsible husbands and fathers?
	What's controversial?
	If that's controversial, it's just because society is insane, not because what I'm saying is controversial.
	The objectification of women.
	That's a new one.
	I hadn't heard that one before.
	In case you didn't notice, I wear a funny hat.
	The hat is called a kippah.
	That kippah suggests that I'm an Orthodox Jew.
	I'm trying to make this linkage for the CBC, a state-funded enterprise in Canada.
	And, um, you know what the Orthodox Jews are not so big on is the objectification of women.
	We're not super big on that.
	I've been an outspoken anti-porn advocate since I was like 16 years old.
	I was an advocate, and still am, for virginity of both sexes until marriage.
	So I'm gonna need some evidence on the objectification of women front.
	By objectification of women do you mean that I think that there are actual standards of beauty?
	And that there are many people in popular culture who we have been told are supposed to be seen as beautiful who are not objectively beautiful?
	Obviously that's true.
	Obviously it's true.
	If you polled men on whether Lizzo is beautiful, and I say Lizzo is not by any classical definition a beautiful person, that does not mean that that is objectification of women.
	That just means that there is a standard called beauty and it has meaning and content.
	That's not a particular controversial view unless, again, you're an insane person.
	But they say that I have increasingly harmful views about LGBT community.
	Now, I assume that what they mean by this is that I say, you know, as most societies have said for literally all human history, that the foundation of a successful society is man, woman, child.
	That heterosexual sex within marriage is the morally preferable form of sex in society, that all of human progeneration is rooted in it, that all of societal Stability is founded upon it, and that when you get rid of the standard, that there is, in fact, a moral superiority to heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage.
	When you get rid of that, you end up destabilizing both reproduction and society itself.
	Again, this is basic natural law kind of stuff.
	Seems to be backed by a fair bit of evolutionary biology as well.
	This is not saying that the government should regulate the type of sex that people can have in the privacy of their own bedroom.
	It is to say that pretending that there is no level of moral superiority to your sex life is very, very silly when we apply moral superiority and inferiority scales to literally everything else you do, from the food that you eat to the clothes that you wear.
	So apparently that's very controversial as well, and that's really bad.
	The goal of the CBC piece, of course, is to get my content banned on social media.
	And so what they have to do here is that they can't actually say, what about my views is so terrible.
	So instead what they do is they say, well, you know, young people watch my stuff and then they increasingly watch other people's stuff.
	And those other people's stuff is really bad.
	And then even worse stuff.
	Now, again, they'll never use this argument about, for example, marijuana and the fact Virtually everyone who does hard drugs originally started with marijuana.
	That argument was ruled out of bounds long ago, and we have to pretend now, by the way, that marijuana is not addictive.
	Marijuana is in fact addictive by all available data.
	We have to pretend all that stuff, but we're not allowed to make that argument with regard to a slippery slope on drugs.
	We're also not allowed to make the argument with regard to a slippery slope on pornography.
	If we say that people access porn and a subsection of the people who access that porn are going to access more and more extreme versions of porn, up to and including violent porn, and that that has an effect on people's souls and it makes them less sensitive toward women, you're not supposed to say that either.
	That's really bad.
	So again, slippery slope arguments only apply to the things that they want them to apply to, namely politics.
	According to the CBC, again, I can't get over the fact, if this were like a normal piece in a normal left-wing publication, like Salon or something, like, okay, fine, this is normal.
	This is a state-funded news report.
	It is a news report.
	It is not even a commentary report from the CBC.
	And as you'll see, this has broader ramifications for where we go as a civilization.
	Because this piece is really the latest iteration of what Canada is doing, which is an attempt to crack down on free speech, particularly the free speech of people who believe in traditional ideas about marriage, for example.
	The videos Brown watched as an early teen were often misogynistic, he said, and it started to affect the way he thought and how he interacted with people at school.
	I remember repeating some sexist attitudes, things about the wage gap.
	He probably.
	OK, so what have I said about the wage gap?
	Let's assume that he watched one of my videos.
	What did I say about the wage gap?
	I said the wage gap is a myth that women do not earn less than men if they are equally qualified, if they've had equal amount of time in the workplace, if they're working the same jobs, if they've not taken time off to have kids.
	That is not sexist.
	That is statistical fact.
	Right now, women earn the majority of degrees in the United States in college.
	Women constitute the majority of people in law schools.
	I believe they now constitute the majority of people in medical schools as well.
	Right now, men are falling behind in the United States, not women.
	So apparently, if he said that, and that made him a sexist, right?
	Especially when I was hanging out with my guy friends, we were repeating all these things we were seeing on the internet.
	A lot of sexism and misogyny.
	The sexism and misogyny example, again, was saying that there is no wage gap.
	Sorry.
	So the things that apparently are really bad that we have learned from this article so far is if you say men are not women and that women and men are not generally judged by the marketplace on sex, these are the problems.
	This is what leads you to apparently extremism.
	That's exactly how online radicalization works.
	This is Ellen Chloe Bateman of Brown's Experience, a documentary and podcast producer who researches online radicalization among young men and insults subculture.
	Bateman describes radicalization as a slippery slope that can begin as algorithms pushing boys to videos that's increasingly harmful.
	Documentary and podcast producer.
	This is the experts right here.
	They said there are experts and now we are being presented with an expert.
	Then, someone might engage you in a comment thread and tell you to join their Discord group, where the content gets darker and it's edgy.
	It's entertaining for some young guys before you know it, you've stumbled into extremist subculture.
	Some young men may also see messages of empowerment for women and girls as an attack on masculinity, says Joanna Schrader, a writer whose work focuses on gender and media representation.
	Man, the expertise of the people they are citing here at the CBC, just stunning.
	Stunning stuff.
	Maybe they see me too stuff.
	Maybe they see a t-shirt or bumper sticker that says the future is female, she said.
	There's a lot of encouraging content out there for girls.
	And if young men aren't given an opportunity to talk through their feelings on this, they may see this as men are irrelevant.
	Well, I mean, I can't imagine how a boy might read a shirt that says the future is female and think men are irrelevant.
	Hard to draw that connection, guys.
	If the future is female, then the future is by necessity not male, is it not?
	I mean, I'm sorry that your language seems a little extreme, actually.
	And I can see why people might draw the opposite conclusion from the one that you are pushing.
	So how can society give young men a way to work through their feelings in a healthy way?
	Well, they can go to a liberal group and then they can talk about normal behavior and they can be re-indoctrinated into the precepts of the left.
	That would be the best.
	Apparently, there is a group that they are pushing, the CBC is pushing, called Guys Work in Nova Scotia.
	There's a person named Morris Green who founded it.
	Green says he began working with schools in Nova Scotia in 2012, hoping to give young men a safe space to talk about their feelings, mental health, and to disrupt problematic ideas about masculinity.
	Wow, disrupt, you gotta disrupt those problematic ideas.
	There's often homophobia and a concern that anything other than straight may be perceived by peers as not normal.
	We wanted to basically normalize help-seeking behavior.
	Ah.
	So, basically, the idea is that if you believe traditional things, this makes you a homophobe, and also probably you might be gay.
	So, good job, CBC.
	This is excellent.
	Now, again, as I say, there are broader ramifications to this.
	So many elements of Western civilization, from Great Britain to Canada to the United States, pushed by the cultural left, have this stamp.
	And the stamp is that traditional ideas are bad and dangerous.
	And those traditional ideas must be thrown out.
	And that's how you end up with the CBC, a state-sponsored enterprise, pushing the idea That my content is somehow an extremism factory.
	But you know what's not extreme in Canada?
	What's not extreme is the Halton District School Board standing behind an accepted transgender teacher at Oakville Trafalgar High School.
	Apparently, this teacher is a man who has been wearing fake breasts that are the sizes of beach balls with fake plastic hard nipples attached to them to class.
	So this is a male teacher acting out his sexual fetishes against students.
	That's what this is.
	There's another rationale for this.
	Because this is nutso behavior.
	Technically speaking, this is crazy behavior.
	No normal person would do this.
	This is not something you would do.
	This is not something a normal transgender person would do.
	This is crazy behavior.
	This is not a man who believes that he is a woman who just decided one day to put on a wig and slap on a dress.
	Nope, this is a man who has decided to act out his actual full-on sexual fetishes in front of children because that is the only reason that you wear fake prosthetic breasts that are the size of watermelons to school with hard nipples at the end of them.
	And the school district is defending this because after all, gender identity.
	HDSP Chair Margo Shuttleworth told the Toronto Sun staff are looking at going through creating a safety plan to ensure the Oakville Trafalgar High School teachers' security as they prepare for potential protests when the school open for classes.
	Protecting any person's gender rights is the stance the school board is taking.
	They are standing behind the teacher, said Shuttleworth.
	Pre-transition, the teacher was known to students and faculty as a male and went by a man's name.
	The teacher now identifies as a woman and is referenced with a female name.
	The school board says it simply sees her as a good teacher.
	See, this is not extreme.
	It's not extreme to foist upon students sexual perverts.
	That's what that is, okay?
	Again, we're not even talking about a person who just has gender dysphoria.
	We're talking about a person, the picture shows, who's wearing watermelon-sized breasts in front of high school students with fake nipples attached to them.
	That apparently is a sexual identity and that must be protected.
	That's not extreme in any way.
	True extremism is a saying that there are gradations of sexual morality in life and that heterosexual sex within the confines of marriage is the best.
	That's the true extremism according to Canada.
	And by the way, Canada right now is pushing forward with a bill to quote unquote address harmful online content.
	It is not a coincidence the CBC is pushing this at the same time that this bill is moving forward.
	According to Rachel Aiello at ctvnews.ca Apparently, after receiving heaps of largely critical feedback and going back to the drawing board with the help of experts over the last several months, sources close to a particular file on hate and harassment online tell CTV News the government is still contemplating how to approach the complex online safety legislation they are pushing in a way that responds to critics' concerns while addressing the state of discourse online.
	The pledge originated with the intention of forcing online communication service providers like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok To be more accountable and transparent in handling five kinds of harmful content on their platforms.
	Hate speech, by which they mean anything they don't like.
	Child exploitation, the sharing of non-consensual images, incitements to violence and terrorism.
	The Liberals' intention was to ensure the kinds of behaviors that are illegal in person are also illegal online.
	Well, the problem is that in Canada, many of the behaviors that are illegal in person are things that in the United States used to be called free speech.
	So for example, in Canada, if you misgender a person, you could be in violation of the law in large swaths of Canada.
	If you say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman in Canada, this may be a crime depending on how you address that question publicly.
	So now they would like to extend that to the online sphere.
	That is the goal here.
	Sources say the government remains committed to putting forward legislation that will give Canadians more tools to address harms online.
	So they are pushing this thing forward.
	Again, what you're seeing from the CBC is part of a generalized push to destroy free speech in Canada.
	And that is not a coincidence.
	It also happens to not really be restricted to Canada.
	Get to more on that in just one second.
	First, now look around your house.
	If your house isn't looking quite how you want it to look, one of the things you should really think about is how natural light flows into your home.
	This is a big thing for me.
	I love it, natural light.
	And this means that I need my window coverings to be excellent.
	Blinds.com can make the magic happen for you.
	They let you handle the measurements and install it yourself, or you can have Blinds.com take care of it with local pros.
	There's no showroom, no retail markups, no matter how many you order.
	Installation cost is the same.
	Blinds.com is the number one online retailer of custom window coverings with over 40,000 five-star reviews.
	Everything they sell is covered by their perfect fit and 100% satisfaction guarantee.
	You can measure and install yourself or have Blinds.com take care of it with local professionals.
	There's no showroom, no retail markets, and no matter how many you order, installation is just one low cost.
	With hundreds of styles and colors to choose from, Blinds.com is sure to have the perfect treatments for your windows.
	Shop at Blinds.com right now.
	Save up to 40% sitewide.
	Today's your last day to get all draperies and curtains for 45% off.
	When you check out online, don't forget to tell them you heard about Blinds.com from The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Rules and restrictions may apply.
	Plus, you can pay over time with PayPal credit at Blinds.com.
	PayPal credit is subject to credit approval.
	Visit Blinds.com slash PayPal for details.
	In the United States, there is a hard push from the left to radically shift the boundaries of quote-unquote acceptable speech.
	So, for example, there's been a very hard push against my friend Libs of TikTok.
	Libs of TikTok is an account, and all Libs of TikTok does on Twitter is just retweet videos of people who are nutty on the left.
	People who say crazy, extreme, radical things and who are targeting children.
	So Libs of TikTok, for example, puts out videos like this one.
	This is a video of a fifth grade teacher who released a video on TikTok.
	She calls herself the rainbow teacher, wears rainbow glasses and rainbow hair because obviously this is a gay, bisexual, I don't know how this person identifies, but this is not a straight person.
	And this person says that she is really, really excited that so many students are coming to her and coming out without talking with their parents, without working through the issues.
	We're talking about fifth graders.
	Hey, fifth graders are 10 years old.
	So she says there are a lot of 10, 11-year-olds who are coming to her and coming out of the closet.
	Libs of TikTok, of course, is to blame for taking a public video and reposting it in a place where people might not actually approve of the recruitment of small children into the LGBT community.
	Yes, I have had multiple students come out to me not just with their sexuality but also with their gender identity.
	It's one of the reasons I think it's so important to be out and loud and proud so that people feel comfortable coming to me and talking to me because I don't know how much different my life would have been if I had had somebody to come talk to about this kind of stuff.
	My hope is that every student will have somebody that they can talk to about this.
	We're just here receiving.
	This is a propagandist.
	This is a propagandist who I'm sure propagandizes on behalf of the idea that boys can be girls, girls can be boys, and that the fullest form of self-exploration is alternative forms of sexual identity.
	I mean, I don't feel like it's a big leap from, you know, the dyed eyebrows.
	I don't feel like it's a giant leap.
	But libs of TikTok, by putting this sort of stuff up, this means libs of TikTok must be curved.
	So there's an entire article in the New Republic Just a couple of weeks ago, blaming libs of TikTok for a bomb threat, a fake bomb threat on Boston Children's Hospital.
	Quote, what began in spring as a succession of far-right attacks on all ages drag events celebrating pride has by the end of the summer spiraled into a multi-city harassment campaign targeting children's hospitals for offering gender-affirming care, including death threats against providers and at least one bomb threat.
	Anti-LGBTQ politics has without question accelerated and shifted character this year to embrace outright political violence.
	Again, the idea is conflating The notions of traditional morality, and also, by the way, even if you're not traditional, the notion that you should not indoctrinate kids with this garbage.
	That is apparently a form of violence.
	Okay, so the argument the CBC is making in Canada, now you have many outlets in the United States making that about libs of TikTok.
	And the natural corollary is that supposedly libs of TikTok should be banned.
	This has been the ongoing harassment campaign by Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post against libs of TikTok, who apparently spends every waking minute attempting to get libs of TikTok thrown off of social media because of the evil dangers of, you know, actually taking people's videos and then just exposing them to a larger audience.
	Says the New Republic, these may be actors on the political fringe, and the tech-driven aspects of this terror campaign have sometimes been interpreted to minimize its real-world impact.
	But the narrative of LGBTQ rights being cover for child abuse is not just fodder for the right-wing clout chasers of social media.
	It has been weaponized by the right against their opponents in elections, from school boards to state legislatures.
	It has been amplified and legitimized by lawmakers like Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who in August introduced a sweeping bill that would ban gender-affirming care, and by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
	Again, the idea here is everyone I don't like is a violent threat.
	And thus, we must use the auspices of government and social media and big tech to shut them down.
	And this, of course, is now being forwarded by certain governmental actors.
	According to the Associated Press, in Montana, Montana's health department said Monday it will follow a judge's ruling and temporarily allow transgender people to change their gender on their birth certificates.
	The judge issued a scathing order Monday morning saying health officials made calculated violations of his order, which had told them to temporarily stop enforcing a law blocking transgender people from changing their gender on their birth certificates unless they had undergone surgery.
	There had been, um, there'd been a law that was passed duly by the state of Montana that said you are not allowed to retcon history and pretend that you were born a male when you were born a female.
	And this judge overruled the law on the basis of, hmm, on the basis of whatever.
	District Court Judge Michael Moses said Monday he would promptly consider motions for contempt based on continued violations of his April order, which he clarified in a verbal order at a hearing on Thursday.
	Just hours after that hearing, the Republican-run state said it would defy the order and keep in place a rule that will disallow any changes to birth certificates unless they were due to a clerical error.
	On Monday afternoon, the Department of Public Health and Human Services issued a statement saying it would comply with the order despite disagreeing with it.
	Funny how all of the advocates on the left who are talking about how the Supreme Court is anti-democratic have no problem with the anti-democracy of a single district court judge forcing the state to now retcon birth certificates.
	The goal here is a radical shift in social politics and the shutting down by law or social pressure of all countervailing viewpoints.
	This ties into, of course, a broader problem in American public life right now, which is the attempt to criminalize opposing political activity.
	Which brings us to this amazing story, courtesy of Ashley Oliver over at Breitbart.
	Quote, a whistleblower has accused the FBI's Washington field office of using cases related to the January 6th U.S.
	Capitol riot to overstate the threat of domestic violence extremism in America, according to Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio.
	The whistleblower alleged the FBI did not follow standard investigative practices for the January 6th cases when it moved the cases to various local field offices around the country based on where the case subjects were from.
	Jordan revealed in a letter addressed to the FBI Director Chris Wray, Over the weekend, January 6th cases should all be officially led by the Washington Field Office and categorized as WFO cases, according to the letter.
	Instead, a task force dispatched instructions to open January 6th investigations to local field offices nationwide.
	The whistleblower told Jordan, quote, the manipulative case file practice creates false and misleading crime statistics.
	Instead of hundreds of investigations stemming from a single Black Swan incident at the Capitol, FBI and DOJ officials point to significant increases in domestic violence, extremism and terrorism around the United States.
	Jordan noted in the letter, such an artificial case categorization scheme allows FBI leadership to misleadingly point to significant increases in domestic violence, extremist threats nationwide, which supports a narrative being perpetuated by the Biden administration.
	The whistleblower also alleges January 6th cases weren't appropriately taking priority over other cases, citing an instance of being told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies.
	The whistleblower allegation comes after at least two other whistleblowers indicated to Jordan that FBI officials were pressuring agents to reclassify cases as domestic violence extremism, despite there being limited evidence to do so.
	In other words, this has been the goal since January 6th, is to broaden out the indictment of people who committed criminal acts on January 6th to include a bunch of people who just disagree in local areas.
	Which ties into the 2021 narrative, for example, that school boards being yelled at by angry parents over trans students going into bathrooms, that those school boards were now the victims of domestic terror threats.
	The attempt to broaden out criminal prosecution to encompass people you just don't like is particularly scary coming, again, from law enforcement agencies that are imperfectly willing to play politics.
	In a little-noticed story last week from the Washington Free Beacon, Chuck Ross reported that the Russian analyst charged with lying to the FBI about his role in crafting the infamous Steele dossier was on the Bureau's payroll as a confidential informant, according to an explosive court filing.
	Special Counsel John Durham revealed the FBI hired Igor Danchenko in March 2017, months after the Bureau first interviewed him about his work on the Steele dossier.
	The Steele dossier, of course, was crap.
	Igor Danchenko was one of the lead sources for the Steele dossier.
	And apparently the FBI had him on payroll.
	Durham charged Danchenko last year with repeatedly lying to the FBI about his work on the dossier.
	His source is for the discredited document.
	Durham alleged that Danchenko fabricated allegations in the dossier that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
	Danchenko worked at the time for Christopher Steele, who investigated Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
	The filing is likely to raise questions about the FBI's relationship with Danchenko, which ended in October 2020.
	The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against Danchenko in 2009, when he worked as an analyst at Brookings, a liberal think tank in Washington, D.C.
	One of Danchenko's colleagues claimed Danchenko asked whether he'd be willing to sell him classified information.
	The FBI closed that investigation after Danchenko left the United States in 2011.
	Then he came back and he started working for Steele's private intelligence firm, Orbis.
	During the 2016 presidential campaign, Steele funneled the Steele dossier to the FBI, and apparently the FBI was using Danchenko to provide information about a wide variety of topics and paying him at the time that he was similarly dissembling to them.
	All of which is deeply suspicious.
	The weaponization of law enforcement on behalf of a political point of view is truly frightening, and it should be.
	And of course, this now extends to immigration.
	So, Ron DeSantis, last week, he flew some 50 illegal immigrants from Texas via Florida to Martha's Vineyard.
	And this set the world on fire.
	The entire left-wing media lost their minds.
	The legacy media, it was just awful.
	It was just terrible.
	How could such a thing happen?
	After all, this is a human rights violation, putting people on it.
	Air-conditioned charter airplanes when they, apparently, we are learning, been homeless, wandering around the border, taking them, putting them on charter airplanes to the nicest area of the United States, where they are promptly taken in by the local residents for a grand total of 48 hours before the National Guard arrives to take them to an Air Force base and provide them all the amenities.
	Apparently, this is a massive human rights abuse.
	It is amazing that the first move of so many Democratic officials is to simply criminalize things they do not like without any proper cause, by the way.
	So yesterday, A Democratic sheriff in Bexar County, his name is Javier Salazar.
	He said that he was opening an investigation into the 50 illegal immigrants sent to Martha's Vineyard.
	This requires a full-scale investigation.
	So, no investigation on the 2 million illegal immigrants crossing the southern border.
	No investigation on drug cartels that are preying on people who are crossing the southern border by offering them work as soon as they get across.
	This is a story of Blake Masters in Arizona, the senatorial campaign.
	who's currently running for senator in Arizona.
	He released that story that basically there are gangs that are going down to the border, finding young men who are crossing the border illegally, and then recruiting them into the drug trade.
	No investigation from Javier Salazar on that.
	No investigation on the 53 illegal immigrants who died in the back of a truck in his county not all that long ago.
	But he is full scale on the case of the illegal immigrants who were put on charter airplanes to Martha's Vineyard and given snack bags and water bottles.
	Here's Javier Salazar announcing this yesterday.
	We are opening up a case with an investigation with regard to the suspected activities involving the 48 migrants from Venezuela.
	As we understand it, 48 migrants were lured, I will use the word lured, under false pretenses into staying at a hotel.
	For a couple of days they were taken by airplane at a certain point they were shuttled to an airplane where they were flown to Florida and then eventually flown to Martha's Vineyard again under false pretenses is the information that we have.
	When you're playing with human lives of people that are already in a desperate situation people that Again, had every right to be where they were but were lured under false pretenses.
	That does tend to bother me quite a bit and so we are absolutely opening up an investigation into this.
	Not a political move.
	By the way, he is an elected Democrat official.
	Also, he said in the middle of the same press conference that he cannot actually point to any law that was broken.
	Which, by the way, that's how you're supposed to do law enforcement.
	You find a thing that you don't like and then you try to hang a crime on it.
	It's like Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York.
	When she was elected, she's like, I hate Trump and I will find a crime.
	So basically, you now have the sheriff.
	He's like, yeah, I don't see a crime here.
	Like state, local, federal.
	No crime here.
	Ron DeSantis is a big meanie who humiliated Democrats, so I'm going to investigate him.
	And this, by the way, made all the headlines, of course.
	You saw the New York Times cover it.
	You saw the Washington Post cover it.
	Wow.
	Ron DeSantis is under investigation.
	They all still have the Mueller fantasy in their head that everybody I don't like will end up behind bars.
	You'll see their frog marching DeSantis memes coming out any second from the left.
	Here's the sheriff admitting, I have no criminal case here, but I'm going to investigate anyway and waste taxpayer dollars on it.
	At this point, I'm not able to definitively say, here's the statute that they broke, either federal, state, or local.
	But what I can tell you is it's wrong.
	Just from a human rights perspective, what was done to these folks is wrong.
	The allegations that we've heard is absolutely distasteful.
	It's disgusting.
	It's an abuse of human rights.
	But I would like to find out sooner rather than later what charges, if any, are going to apply and to whom.
	Well, wouldn't you investigate that before you announce an investigation?
	Like what the possible statutes that were broken are?
	That's not how you do law enforcement.
	This is a joke.
	Everybody knows it's a joke.
	The media are covering it like it's not a joke.
	Because again, their fantasy is apparently everybody we don't like who humiliates us publicly must be thrown in jail.
	That's an amazing statement.
	I'm not able to definitively say here's the statute they broke, but I don't like it very much.
	It's bad.
	Apparently, by the way, the brochures that were given to the illegal immigrants had information from the Massachusetts state website about what you get when you obtain refugee status, which you get after you are granted asylum, if in fact you are granted asylum.
	Also, apparently, according to Ron DeSantis and the Florida government, apparently, the illegal immigrants were given multiple opportunities to get off the plane, to not go to Martha's Vineyard.
	They said no one was promised a job.
	Everyone was given multiple opportunities to leave.
	Some decided not to go.
	On the flight.
	Those who did make the flight were provided bags with snacks and water and information.
	An administration official said, many who made the trip were homeless and hungry.
	And prior to the plane ride, they were put in accommodations for one or two days.
	So basically they were given a free hotel for a couple of days, put on a charter flight to Martha's Vineyard.
	That sounds like a nice vacation, to be honest with you.
	I think a lot of Americans would like this deal.
	Salazar said, the investigation doesn't have anything to do with the political affiliation.
	Oh, yeah, I'm sure.
	Yeah, I'm sure that it nothing.
	It's not it's not politics at all that you are playing here.
	It's more on this in just one second.
	Well, folks, the time is upon us for another backstage happening tonight, 6 p.m.
	Central, 7 p.m.
	Eastern.
	It's about time because there's more news than ever to discuss.
	If you've never seen backstage before, it's where I get together with my daily wear cohorts, including Matt Walsh, Michael Moles, Andrew Clavin and God King Jeremy Boring for a roundtable discussion.
	on the burning issues of the day.
	Jokes will be cracked.
	Cigars will be smoked.
	Not by me, because I hate them.
	Libations will be imbibed, but also not by me.
	Plus, we'll be reuniting with our good friend Candace Owens, who's back with exciting news, ready to tick off leftists more than ever.
	You definitely don't want to miss this backstage.
	Tune in tonight, 6 p.m.
	Central, 7 p.m.
	Eastern, dailywireplus.com.
	Okay, so Again, the left's prevailing take is, if I don't like it, it must be criminal.
	Whether we are talking about a take on LGBTQ politics, or whether we are talking about Ron DeSantis shipping illegal immigrants from Texas via Florida to Martha's Vineyard.
	The thing they actually don't want to pay attention to, of course, is the wages of illegal immigration.
	that might actually require them to take action.
	Instead, they would like to virtue signal about how they are into sanctuary cities without actually having to take credit for their very, very bad policy.
	This is a point made by the Washington Examiner.
	It's also made by Ron DeSantis' team.
	Ron DeSantis' team put out a statement after Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar announced an investigation with no actual statute to back him.
	The DeSantis administration put out a statement pointing out that he seemed a lot less bothered by 53 illegal immigrants dying in a truck found abandoned in Bexar County this June.
	The spokesperson for the governor said Florida gave them an opportunity to see greener pastures in a sanctuary jurisdiction that offered greater resources for them as we expected.
	Unless the Massachusetts National Guard has abandoned these individuals, they've been provided accommodation, sustenance, clothing, and more options to succeed following their unfair enticement into the United States.
	You're thinking that you're speaking about luring people?
	How about luring two million people across the southern border and then basically abandoning them, which is what the Biden administration has done.
	That seems like a bit more of a problem.
	That's the point the Washington Examiner editorial board makes.
	Sending a few immigrants to a Democratic enclave inhabited by left liberals who mostly support Biden and are planning rich enough to look after the new arrivals is an effective way of drawing a national crisis properly to national attention.
	It also puts those responsible for the crisis on the spot and asks what they propose doing about it.
	Not only is it Republicans who are trying to get Biden to pay attention to the disaster he has caused.
	The mayor of Yuma, Arizona asked the White House in May to stop busing immigrants to his small city of 97,000.
	Biden ignored Yuma.
	The bus of immigrants kept flowing.
	The Democratic mayor of Eagle Pass, Texas reached out to the White House for assistance with immigrants flooding his community.
	Mayor Rolando Salinas told the Washington Examiner, I'd like to hear a plan as to what they're doing to counter the possibility of a surge in people on the border.
	Nobody's reached out to me or to the city.
	I haven't heard from anyone.
	The situation in El Paso, Texas is even worse.
	Immigrants are sleeping on streets all over town.
	The situation is so bad, the Democratic mayor has already sent more than 50 bus loads to New York City, over and above any sent there, and to Washington, D.C.
	by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
	Those buses have been arriving in New York since August.
	CBS News didn't bother to report on those.
	Again, 50 illegal immigrants arriving in Martha's Vineyard sets the world aflame simply because the left is forced to admit that its policies don't work.
	And so their natural apparent response is to celebrate when a sheriff with no legal authority whatsoever to prosecute a non-crime decides that he is going to get himself involved in this sort of thing.
	Now, this should be scary to a lot of Americans.
	It really should.
	And it underscores the fact that sort of traditional Western values are being undermined in a wild way.
	They're basic values, fundamental values, like the value of family, the value of a border, right?
	These are things that used to be held in common by all Western citizens.
	Yeah, there are a lot of people who believed in freedom of immigration.
	That's fine.
	But the idea that illegal immigration is okay or that a government has no control over its own border is totally crazy.
	There used to be a lot of Americans who believed that traditional marriage was the standard.
	Now, if you say that in Canada, you might be prosecuted.
	All of this stuff is, I think, one of the reasons why there was outsized mourning for Queen Elizabeth II.
	I think that when she died, there were a lot of people in the West who felt as though something really important died with her.
	And that was a tether to the past.
	The left seems very hot and bothered about the fact that there are so many people who mourn for Queen Elizabeth II.
	And they're wondering why.
	After all, she didn't actually have real power.
	But the real reason why there are so many people who are mourning for Queen Elizabeth II is, again, we are part of a chain of history.
	And when you untether that chain, what you end up with is bad utopian ideas floating away into the sunlight where they burn up and fall down to Earth like Icarus.
	That is what we are watching as a civilization right now.
	And so, mourning the death of a person who is tethered to that past, tethered to traditional religions, tethered to traditional ideas, that is well worthwhile.
	The left likes to pretend it's not worthwhile, that it's really bad and really stupid, but in reality, that is something that is indeed worth mourning.
	Alrighty, guys, the rest of the show is continuing.
	Now, you're not going to want to miss it.
	We'll be getting into Don Lemming getting absolutely shellacked on CNN by a historian for the royals.
	Plus, we still have to get into Joe Biden suggesting that inflation actually isn't that bad.

▲