Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 10, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:35

The Most Hilarious Story Of The Year | Ep. 1643

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Classified documents from Joe Biden's vice presidential office are found where they shouldn't be.
	A new study reveals that Russian Facebook 2016 interference made no material difference.
	And a brand new woke bag of all-female M&Ms hits the market.
	It's exciting stuff.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Bench Bureau Show.
	Okay, so this is the funniest story of the year, and I know the year is young, but it's really, really funny.
	So, as you'll recall, we've spent the last couple of years, really since the exit of Donald Trump from the presidency, waiting with bated breath as the media attempt to get him this time.
	They're going to get him.
	They're going to get him over Georgia voting, or they're going to get him Over January 6th, or they're going to get him over classified documents being held at Mar-a-Lago.
	And we were treated to all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories about why all of these classified documents were found at Mar-a-Lago, why Donald Trump was holding them there.
	There are all sorts of theories that he had the nuclear codes there, that he was going to take those nuclear codes and hand them over to the Russkies or the Chinese.
	Because as always, the simplest theories about President Trump are the ones that are true.
	He had a bunch of documents.
	He liked the documents.
	He didn't want to give back the documents.
	That is the entire thing.
	And everybody in the media treated it as though this was a massive scandal.
	He's out there.
	He's stealing the documents.
	He's going to hand them over.
	He's a traitor.
	We're going to hang him for treason.
	That's what it is.
	And Trump's like, no, I just like this document that has Kim Jong-un writing poetry on it.
	That's what I like.
	And the entire media spend a couple of years fulminating over the evils of taking classified documents out of a place where they should be into a place where they should not be.
	Now, here's the thing.
	Donald Trump was actually president of the United States.
	So while he was president, he did have the summary power of declassification.
	It's a complex legal issue as to actually how documents get declassified and all that.
	But one thing is certain.
	The entire Democratic Party said it was unthinkable Insane.
	Ridiculous.
	For a former president of the United States to have access to classified documents that he should not have access to, and those documents should not have been outside the purview of classified areas.
	And it's completely different when Hillary Clinton stores classified material on her servers at home.
	They couldn't explain why it was completely different when she did that or why it was completely different in a good way that she was actually storing them on technology that was accessible from outside the United States by foreign enemies of the United States, as admitted by former FBI Director James Comey when he decided not to indict her.
	But they said, no, no, it's completely different because Trump was told to turn over the documents and Hillary, she turned over whatever she had, except for the stuff that she bleach bit on her on her hard drive.
	And so it's completely different, completely different.
	And at the time we had Joe Biden, who is a The President of the United States, we had him saying that it was absolutely unthinkable and irresponsible for anybody to store classified documents outside of classified areas.
	Again, despite the fact that this has happened multiple times in the past, ranging from Hillary Clinton to Sandy Berger, who's an attorney for President Clinton, attempting to smuggle out classified documents in his pants from the National Archives in July 2004, all of which ended.
	With Sandy Berger pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, right?
	There are no accusations of treason in that particular case.
	But with Trump, Trump's the worst person in the world, and therefore it was completely irresponsible and terrible for him to have documents on the premises at Mar-a-Lago, even if they were basically in a locked closet that no one was accessing just because Trump wanted the documents there.
	And you'll recall that, again, Joe Biden was not quiet about this.
	Joe Biden said in his own inimitably mashed potato style that Donald Trump was a deeply irresponsible person for having done anything like this.
	When you saw the photograph of the top-secret documents laid out on the floor at Mar-a-Lago, what did you think to yourself, looking at that image?
	How that could possibly happen.
	How anyone could be that irresponsible.
	And I thought, what data was in there that may compromise sources and methods?
	By that I mean names of people who helped, etc.
	And it's just totally irresponsible.
	So irresponsible and what was in there?
	I mean it could have been nuclear codes, could have been a recipe for Coca-Cola, the original recipe, no one knows.
	I don't know.
	Okay, well, it would be weird and ironic if the President of the United States, when he was the Vice President of the United States, had taken classified documents and put them in a non-classified area, would it not?
	It'd be strangely hilarious if that turned out to be the truth.
	Oh, well, breaking news.
	According to CBS, Attorney General Merrick Garland has assigned the U.S.
	Attorney in Chicago to review documents marked classified that were found at the Pentagon.
	Guys, always remember, politics is veep.
	everyone is a moron. Documents that were marked classified were found at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington. Two sources with knowledge of the inquiry told CBS News. The roughly 10 documents are from President Biden's vice presidential office at the center, the sources said. CBS News has learned the FBI is also involved in the U.S. Attorney's inquiry. Womp womp from the Price is Right.
	Like just.
	Well done, Joe Biden.
	Mashed potatoes for brains.
	Terrible.
	You should never have classified documents outside of a classified area, says Joe Biden, who had classified documents outside of a classified area, outside of a safe area.
	The material was identified by personal attorneys for Mr. Biden on November 2nd, just before the midterm elections.
	Richard Salbert, special counsel to the president, confirmed.
	The documents were discovered when Biden's personal attorneys were packing files housed in a locked closet to prepare to vacate office space at the Penn-Biden Center in Washington, D.C.
	Oh, you mean in a locked closet?
	But I thought that locked closets were bad.
	Like, if it's a locked closet in Florida, that's super bad.
	And if it's a locked closet in Washington, D.C.
	at the Penn-Biden Center, it's totally okay, apparently.
	I do love that they discovered this November 2nd.
	You'll recognize that November 2nd is before the actual election date, November 6th, and yet we only find out about this in mid-January of 2023.
	Hmm.
	Might it have made a difference in the midterm elections if people had known that Joe Biden had had a bunch of classified documents in his possession?
	We'll get to more on all this in just one second.
	First, Black Rifle Coffee Company.
	It is keeping me alive right now.
	We have a brand new puppy.
	I have three young kids.
	This means I'm up at all hours.
	And that means when I wake up in the morning, I need coffee.
	I need my Black Rifle.
	Black Rifle Coffee Company set out on a mission to make the best cup of coffee to ever hit your mug.
	They wanted to sell enough premium coffee to be able to build a support network for veterans, first responders, and law enforcement.
	Thanks to your support, that dream has now become a reality.
	This year alone, your support has helped Black Rifle Coffee expand their team of active duty service members, veterans, and veteran family members.
	They were able to donate over 120,000 bags of coffee to veterans and first responders, all thanks to you.
	If you want to continue supporting this incredible company, head on over to BlackRifleCoffee.com, use promo code SHAPIRO at checkout for 10% off your purchase and your first coffee club order.
	Black Rifle Coffee is roasted by a veteran-led team of brilliant coffee graders here in the United States.
	The coffee is amazing.
	I have it literally every morning.
	You go to BlackRifleCoffee.com to get started.
	Use promo code Shapiro for 10% off.
	You can also find Black Rifle Coffee in grocery and convenience stores near you.
	Black Rifle Coffee is America's coffee.
	Also, we're talking about how you keep your energy level up.
	We're talking about how you keep healthy.
	You need the veggies and you need the fruits, right?
	But it is a problem to get all the helpings you need of veggies and fruits during the course of a day.
	It's just very, very difficult.
	This is where Balance of Nature comes in.
	Balance of Nature fruits and veggies are the best way to make sure you're getting essential and nutritional ingredients every single day.
	Their products are 100% whole food.
	Balance of Nature uses a cold vacuum process that preserves the natural phytonutrients in whole fruits and vegetables and encapsulates them for easy consumption.
	Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their product down to the studio for my team to try.
	We all love them.
	I've been using them myself because they are, in fact, kosher.
	When you are disciplined enough to take care of your health, you reap all kinds of benefits.
	More energy, less fatigue, better focus.
	Consuming the right balance of fruits and veggies every day is an important first step.
	Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code SHAPIRO for 25% off your first order as a preferred customer, plus a free fiber and spice.
	That's balanceofnature.com, promo code SHAPIRO for 25 bucks off your first preferred order.
	Get healthier, In a far easier way than guzzling fruits and veggies.
	Instead, head on over to balanceofnature.com, use promo code Shapiro, get 25 bucks off your first order as a preferred customer.
	Plus, we add free fiber and spice.
	The documents were contained in a folder that was in a box with other unclassified papers, the sources said.
	The sources revealed neither what the documents contained nor their level of classification.
	A source familiar with the matter told CBS News the documents did not contain nuclear secrets.
	Well, I mean, if that's the new standard, they have to contain nuclear secrets.
	By the way, I've seen no evidence that Donald Trump's documents actually contained nuclear secrets.
	There are all those rumors that he had nuclear secrets and they were being distributed, but none of that has been confirmed.
	Sauber also said that on the same day the material was discovered, November 2nd, the White House Counsel's Office notified the National Archives, which took possession of the materials the following morning.
	The discovery of these documents was made by the president's attorney, Sauber said.
	The documents were not the subject of any previous request or inquiry by the Archives.
	Since that discovery, the president's personal attorneys have cooperated with the Archives and the Department of Justice in a process to ensure that any Obama-Biden administration records are appropriately in the possession of the Archives.
	Okay, so the distinction they're going to attempt to draw is that we discovered it and we handed it over as opposed to Donald Trump, where it was discovered and he refused to hand it over.
	Okay, I will say that that is in fact a distinction.
	But you know what is true?
	Classified documents are out there floating around because politicians are irresponsible.
	Joe Biden is no exception to that rule.
	So when you have slow old Joe talking about how terrible it is, just pure irresponsibility to have these documents floating around outside of classified arenas.
	Yeah, I don't take you seriously because I don't take any of you seriously.
	And it just goes to show, as always and forever, the narrative matters so much more than the fact pattern when it comes to media coverage of these events.
	If you just followed the fact pattern in the Mar-a-Lago case, the worst you could say about President Trump is that President Trump He was clumsy and silly about how he took the documents home to Mar-a-Lago and that he's a stubborn guy.
	But all of the wild media narrative and speculation about how Donald Trump was actually a spy for the Russkies and working for Putin, all of that, of course, was designed to tie into a prior narrative.
	And that narrative, as it turns out, was also a lie.
	It's like a daisy chain of lies from the media.
	They create a lying narrative and then they back up that lying narrative with another lying narrative, which is followed by a third lying narrative.
	So if you'll recall, this is all part of the broader lying Russian narrative, which is also being debunked today.
	So the first move in the Russia has affected America narrative was that the 2016 election was decided on the basis of Donald Trump coordinating with the Russians in order to skew the election results.
	And there are a few problems with this.
	One, they could actually prove no evidence of coordination between Donald Trump and the Russians.
	The best that they had was Donald Trump out there doing what he did in public saying things like, I wish that Vladimir Putin would release all of the WikiLeaks.
	Wiki, we love WikiLeaks.
	And everybody going crazy over that.
	And yes, the president of the United States should not be in favor of the release of classified materials by a foreign enemy.
	But Donald Trump was not actively coordinated with Putin.
	He was out there saying stuff because that's what Donald Trump used to say.
	And so what the media spun that up into, of course, was Donald Trump is actively colluding with the Russians to steal the election because they had to come up with some explanation for why Hillary Clinton had lost to a real estate mogul.
	They couldn't believe that Hillary had lost, so they concocted this entire narrative in which Russia had manipulated the American election.
	And this required them to work with the FBI to push forward a complete bull crap, oppo dossier, the steel dossier, and to use that dossier as the predicate for surveilling people like Carter Page, who were tangentially associated with the Trump campaign, and then launch a several years of Mueller investigation costing tens of millions of dollars into the connections between Donald Trump and Russia.
	And the pure proof that they had that the election had been affected.
	They had no proof that Trump had coordinated with WikiLeaks or coordinated with Putin.
	So they had to come up with something.
	And the something they came up with was that on Facebook, the Russians had manipulated the American process.
	So maybe that wasn't Trump's direct fault, but it was Facebook's direct fault.
	So after 2016 and after Trump won, it exploded their world.
	They came up with all these narratives.
	Trump was colluding with the Russians.
	The Russians were working with Facebook.
	Facebook didn't shut any of this down.
	So we need to shut down control of social media.
	Social media must be brought to heel.
	We must bring the methods of informational dissemination back under our own control.
	And so one of the huge narratives coming out of 2016 is that social media, which heretofore had been seen as an unmitigated good in politics.
	You'll recall that in 2012, Barack Obama was being widely feted for his use of social media in order to get people to the polls.
	His unprecedented use of analytical data garnered from social media like Facebook.
	This was considered an act of genius.
	When Cambridge Analytica did the same thing for Trump in 2016, suddenly it was an act of criminality.
	And the Russians, we were told, had used Facebook in order to manipulate American public opinion.
	And that was why Hillary Clinton had lost the election.
	It wasn't that she was the worst candidate in American history.
	I mean, it would take the worst candidate in American history to lose to Donald Trump, who was, at the time, the second most unpopular politician in America, running against the first most unpopular politician in America.
	No, the solution, they said, is that the Russians had somehow manipulated Facebook into changing the minds of the American people.
	Now, I pointed out at the time that the amount of interference they were talking about from the Russians, the Russian memery, this really bad memory, much of it misspelled in bad American English, That that had had almost no impact like at all on the vote.
	If you looked at the amount of actual virality to the Russian post, it did not exist.
	The entirety of Russian viewership of viewership of Russian material was less than the viewership of my personal Facebook page in a single month.
	That did not shift the election any more than I shifted the election in 2016.
	Significantly less, I would imagine, than I shifted the election in 2016.
	The Russians, however, this was the narrative, because the media always have the narrative.
	So they have the narrative, it was Russian interference prompted by Trump, and then the Russians acted on behalf of Trump with Facebook, so we have to shut down Facebook.
	And we have to curb its dissemination of information.
	And the only way to do that is to get them to stop allowing for the spread of information from places like Daily Wire or Daily Caller or Breitbart or Fox News.
	And then that turned into Russia's collusion with Trump never stopped.
	That's why Trump was stealing documents.
	That's why Trump was putting those classified documents in the closet.
	Well, now it turns out pretty much all these politicians have classified documents in the closet.
	And as it also turns out, reported yesterday, quote, Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters.
	Oh, you think?
	Some of us were saying this at the time because it was perfectly obvious that this was an incredibly stupid and silly narrative.
	And yet it was this narrative that drove debate on regulating the internet.
	It was this narrative that drove debate on Donald Trump being a Russian tool.
	It was this narrative that suggested that Facebook had to radically shift its procedures for how you see information in the news.
	And now it turns out that what we were saying was true all along.
	That Russia's interference, quote-unquote, on Facebook had pretty much no impact on the election.
	quote, Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans.
	And the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections.
	My personal sense coming out of this is this got way overhyped.
	Oh, did it?
	Said Josh Tucker, one of the report's authors, who's also co-director of the NYU Center.
	Now we're looking back at the data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump anyway.
	And we have this data to show we can't find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people's change in attitudes.
	And then I love the Washington Post trying to buy this fact.
	The study did not go so far as to show that Russia had no influence on people who voted for President Donald Trump.
	It doesn't examine Facebook and it doesn't examine Russian hack and leak operations.
	It doesn't suggest that foreign influence operations aren't a threat at all.
	But no, guys, that's exactly what this suggests.
	What it suggests is if the huge social media outlet that is Twitter had no impact on the election via Russian disinformation, probably the same is true of Facebook.
	The stats on Facebook were not great, as I pointed out in the Senate report at the time conducted by Democrats.
	The results showed only 1% of Twitter users accounted for 70% of the exposure to accounts that Twitter identified as Russian troll accounts.
	Highly partisan Republicans were exposed to nine times more posts than non-Republicans.
	Content from the news media and U.S.
	politicians dwarfed the amount of Russian-influenced content the electorate was exposed to during the 2016 race.
	And there was no measurable impact on political attitudes, polarization, and vote preferences and behavior from the Russian account and posts.
	So I noticed the calendar.
	It is now 2023.
	Why did it take seven years for this to come out?
	This was perfectly obvious in 2016 when it was happening.
	And the answer is, again, it is all part of these broader narratives that are crafted by the media.
	The media craft these broader narratives at the behest of the Democratic Party.
	They work together in order to launder those narratives into the public view.
	And then they use those narratives as the predicate for actual law enforcement investigations.
	Into the predicate for actual legislation against places like Twitter and Facebook.
	And talk about how social media is destroying the Republic for allowing too much information we don't like out there.
	Every narrative gets crafted.
	Every narrative gets shaped by the media.
	There's a reason why of all the major institutions in the United States, the legacy media are at the low ebb in terms of public trust.
	This would be the reason.
	And this is why people say, why can't we share the same set of facts?
	Maybe because the people who are supposed to be bringing you the facts spend most of their day crafting widespread false narratives about the state of play.
	Maybe it's that.
	And then they use those narratives in order to cudgel places like social media in order to effectuate change.
	So in the same way that they cuddled Mark Zuckerberg into going before Congress and claiming that people posting random memes was somehow his responsibility, which it is not.
	Facebook is a platform.
	It is not, in fact, a publisher.
	Just as they were able to cudgel Zuckerberg into doing that and cudgel Jack Dorsey over at Twitter into pretending that it was his responsibility to do the work of the Democratic Party and the legacy media, well, they did that with regard to COVID as well.
	We're now learning that Twitter was essentially being manipulated from the outside by the White House, coercing officials in the social media companies into doing their bidding with regard to COVID.
	The Wall Street Journal points out newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media.
	Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House's director of digital media and social media executives prove the company's put COVID censorship policies in place in response to relentless coercive pressure from the White House, not voluntarily.
	The emails emerged January 6th in the discovery phase of Missouri versus Biden.
	A free speech case brought by the Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
	On March 14, 2021, Mr. Flaherty emailed a Facebook executive with the subject line, quote, you're hiding the ball, and a link to a Washington Post article about Facebook's own research into, quote, the spread of ideas that contribute to vaccine hesitancy, as the paper put it.
	I think there's a misunderstanding, the executive wrote back.
	I don't think this is a misunderstanding, Flaherty replied.
	We are gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of VAX hesitancy, period.
	We want you to know.
	We want to know that you're trying.
	We want to know how we can help.
	We want to know that you're not playing a shell game.
	This would all be a lot easier if you'd just be straight with us.
	On March 21st, after failing to placate Flaherty, the Facebook executive sent an email detailing the company's planned policy changes.
	They included removing vaccine misinformation and quote, reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation.
	So in other words, they created a two-pronged system.
	One, they declared certain stuff misinformation, which as it would later turn out was not in fact misinformation.
	And two, even if it was not misinformation, if they thought they would undermine people wanting to get the vaccine, they would discourage the virality, meaning they wouldn't allow these posts to spread.
	Facebook characterized that material as often true content that can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.
	So even stuff that was often true was now subverted by Facebook at the behest of the White House under Joe Biden.
	Facebook pledged to remove these groups, pages, and accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content.
	In that exchange, Flaherty demanded to know what Facebook was doing to limit the spread of viral content on WhatsApp, a private message app, especially given its reach in immigrant communities and communities of color.
	The company responded three weeks later with a lengthy list of promises.
	On April 9th, Flaherty asked, quote, what actions and changes you're making to ensure you're not making our country's vaccine hesitancy problem worse.
	He faulted the company for insufficient zeal in earlier efforts to control political speech.
	Quote, in the electoral context, you tested and deployed an algorithmic shift that promoted quality news and information about the election.
	You only did this, however, after an election, you helped increase skepticism in and an insurrection, which was plotted in large part by your platform.
	And then you turned it back off.
	I want some assurances based in data.
	You are not doing the same thing again here.
	And the executive responded, understood again, part of the broader narrative that when Democrats don't like an outcome, it must be that social media is to blame.
	It must be manipulation by outside forces.
	On April 14th, Flaherty pressed the executive about, quote, why the top post about vaccines today is Tucker Carlson saying they don't work.
	I want to know what reduction actually looks like, he said.
	The executive responded, running this down now.
	On April 23rd, Flaherty sent the executive an internal memo he claimed had been circulating in the White House.
	It asserts that Facebook plays a major role in the spread of COVID vaccine information and accuses the company of, among other things, failure to monitor events hosting anti-vaccine and COVID disinformation and, quote, directing attention to COVID skeptics, anti-vaccine trusted messengers.
	On May 10th, the executive sent Flaherty a list of steps Facebook had taken to increase vaccine acceptance.
	And Flaherty scoffed, quote, hard to take any of this seriously when you're actively promoting anti-vaccine pages in search.
	And then wrote and then linked to an NBC reporter's tweet.
	Because this is the way that this stupid little game works.
	Members of the media spend their days doing the bidding of the Democratic Party.
	The White House can pressure social media and social media does the bidding of the White House.
	President Biden, Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy later publicly vowed to hold the platforms accountable if they didn't heighten censorship.
	On July 16, 2021, a reporter asked Biden about his message to platforms like Facebook, and he said, they're killing people.
	Flaherty also strong-armed Google in April 2021, accusing YouTube of funneling people into vaccine hesitancy.
	Flaherty demanded to know what further measures Google would take to remove disfavored content.
	And this was, this was the constant push by members of the federal government to use social media in order to crack down on information they do not like.
	That is absolute madness.
	And yet this is the way, unfortunately, our news and social media work.
	A narrative is crafted.
	That narrative is crafted by members of the Democratic Party.
	It is then pushed to the media.
	The media are effectively the Praetorian Guard for the Democratic Party.
	The media then report this narrative widespread.
	And then officials in the government go to private companies and they pressure them to change their policies on informational dissemination based on what the media have reported by laundering in Democratic Party messaging.
	This is the stupid little game.
	And it's extraordinarily dangerous because it has real world impact.
	It means that you and I don't see information we should see on everything ranging from elections to vaccines.
	It's a serious problem.
	And it goes even further than that, by the way.
	We'll get to more on this in just one moment.
	First, if the past couple of years have taught us anything, it's that in a crisis, like a global pandemic or a natural disaster, it's a big flood in California right now, even the basics get very difficult to find.
	You remember in the early days of COVID, you couldn't even buy like toilet paper.
	Everything ran out.
	Well, when it comes to medical product, you have to have the medicines that you need ready to go.
	And this is why my new partners at Jace Medical are here to help.
	Jace Medical helps you get a long-term supply of prescription medication.
	is to empower you to be better medically prepared.
	A great way to start prepping is with JaceCase.
	It's a pack of five different courses of antibiotics you can use to treat a whole host of bacterial illnesses, including UTIs, respiratory infections, sinusitis, skin infections, and more.
	All you have to do is fill out a simple online form, and in some cases, jump on a quick call with one of their board-certified physicians.
	From there, you can ask your physician treatment-related questions on an ongoing basis.
	The JaceCase gives me peace of mind knowing my family will have what we need if the worst happens.
	There's nothing worse than the power goes out.
	And suddenly one of the kids is sick and you don't have the medicine that you need.
	I want you to be prepared for anything as well.
	Go to JaceMedical.com.
	Again, that's J-A-C-E Medical.com.
	Enter code Ben at checkout for $10 off your order.
	That's JaceMedical.com.
	Promo code Ben to get started and to protect your family in case, God forbid, there's some sort of natural disaster.
	Speaking of things, God forbid, your death, right?
	We've talked about this before.
	You're walking down the street and suddenly an airplane is Plummeting toward you from a height of thousands of feet, you don't have time to get out of the way.
	Well, in those last few semi-seconds before you are eviscerated, you think to yourself, I should have listened to Shapiro and gotten life insurance.
	That would have been the smart thing to do.
	Everybody needs life insurance.
	If you have dependents, you have people who rely upon you, you need life insurance.
	And this is what Policy Genius can help you achieve.
	Since life insurance typically gets more expensive as you age, now, like today, would be the best time to buy.
	Policy Genius gives you a smarter way to find and buy the right coverage for you and your family.
	Policy Genius is built to modernize the life insurance industry.
	Their technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and find your lowest price.
	With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $17 per month for $500,000 in coverage.
	PolicyGenius's licensed agents can help you find coverage options in as little as a week.
	There are no added fees.
	Your personal information will remain private.
	No wonder they have thousands of five-star reviews on Google and Trustpilot.
	Your loved ones deserve a financial safety net.
	You deserve a smarter way to find and buy it.
	Head on over to policygenius.com.
	Click the link in the description.
	Get your free life insurance quotes.
	See how much.
	You can save.
	Again, that's policygenius.com slash Shapiro to get started.
	Policygenius.com slash Shapiro.
	As it turns out, an enormous amount of pressure has been brought to bear on these social media companies by outside forces connected with, for example, Pfizer.
	So Alex Berenson, who is a VAX skeptic, he's been a VAX skeptic for a long time.
	I disagree with much of what Alex Berenson has said with regard to vaccines.
	I don't think that it is well founded journalistically or in the data.
	However, however, Alex Berenson is reporting, and this is correct, that on August 27, 2021, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer director with over 550,000 Twitter followers, saw a tweet he didn't like, a tweet that might hurt sales of Pfizer's mRNA vaccines.
	The tweet correctly explained that natural immunity after COVID infection was superior to vaccine protection, and it called on the White House to follow the science and exempt people with natural immunity from upcoming vaccine mandates.
	That tweet didn't come from an anti-vaxxer.
	It came from Dr. Brett Giroir, a physician who briefly followed Gottlieb as head of the FDA.
	And the tweet actually said that if you didn't have natural immunity, you should get vaccinated.
	It didn't matter.
	So Gottlieb stepped in and he emailed Todd O'Boyle, a top lobbyist in Twitter's Washington office, who is also Twitter's point of contact with the White House.
	The post said Gottlieb was corrosive.
	He said, this is the kind of stuff that's corrosive.
	Here he draws a sweeping conclusion off a single retrospective study in Israel that hasn't been peer reviewed.
	But this tweet will end up going viral and driving news coverage.
	And this apparently resulted in Twitter acting.
	Through JIRA, an internal system Twitter used for managing complaints, Oboe forwarded Gottlieb's email to the Twitter strategic response team.
	That group was responsible for handling concerns from the company's most important employees and users.
	Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner, Oboe wrote, failing to mention that Gottlieb was a Pfizer board member.
	A strategic response analyst quickly found the tweet did not violate the company's misinformation rules, but Twitter wound up flagging Girard's tweet anyway, putting a misleading tag on it and preventing almost anyone from seeing it.
	It remains tagged, even though several large studies have now confirmed that what Girard said was actually true.
	A week later, on September 3rd, Gottlieb tried to do the same thing, complaining to O'Boyle about a tweet from Justin Hart.
	Hart is a lockdown and COVID Vax skeptic with about 100,000 Twitter followers.
	He said, sticks and stones may break my bones, but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of approximately zero has cost our children nearly three years of schooling, Hart had written.
	Gottlieb objected to the words, but the simple fact of the matter is that that was right.
	Now, again, this is dangerous stuff.
	Now, Scott Gottlieb has been a guest on this program because, again, he was the former FDA commissioner.
	The fact that he was using that position and that influence behind the scenes in order to quash the opinions of others is insanity.
	And this is the widespread move.
	You find people who are in positions of influence, and those people are able to pressure sort of mid-level management at these big social media companies to quash informational dissemination.
	And then you wonder why levels of trust are so unbelievably low.
	That's particularly true When you have the Pfizer CEO now admitting that immune protection from vaccines does not last for long.
	So the Babylon Bee joke today that Pfizer is now going to create a Bainsuit where you are injected with a vaccine every 12 hours until your body is entirely comprised of vaccine.
	That seems about correct at this point.
	Here's the Pfizer CEO who's admitting that the length of the durability of vaccine immunity is pretty low here.
	I think a lot of people are still wondering what's going to happen with COVID.
	Of course.
	And with your vaccine.
	How are you sort of modeling, based on what you've seen this winter so far, what does that look like going forward?
	Look, we are dealing with a very nasty virus.
	Two characteristics.
	One it is, if you get sick, even, or vaccinated, the immune protection that you are getting from those two, it doesn't last for long.
	And then the second it is, keeps changing.
	That creates even more complications.
	So all the things that we were originally told about the vaccine, much of that is not true.
	All of this leads to massive societal distrust.
	And when you combine that with the fact that our leading scientific thinkers, right, the institution that is supposed to actually provide us with goods and services that improve our lives, those scientific institutions have been hijacked by actual ideologues.
	All of this makes our situation ever more precarious.
	So for example, you have the editor of Scientific American suggesting that Tamar Hamlin's collapse on the football field, quote, highlights the violence of black men experienced in football.
	The terrifyingly ordinary nature of football's violence disproportionately affects black men.
	This is not a think piece in Slate.
	This is a piece in Scientific American.
	Millions of people watched as DeMar Hamlin, a 24-year-old player in the NFL, executed a seemingly routine tackle during a highly anticipated Monday Night Football game, immediately after Hamlin rose to his feet and then collapsed.
	Players from his team, the Buffalo Bills, and the opposing team, the Cincinnati Bengals, created a tight huddle around him on the field as medical personnel tried to revive him.
	We learned the next day that Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest.
	His heart had suddenly stopped working.
	The scene was horrific for both its regularity and its exceptionality.
	Matt Gutman of ABC tweeted as much.
	The scariest part of this is that the hit was in fact not scary.
	It looked terrifyingly ordinary.
	The ordinariness of men running into each other at full speed represents a normalized, even rationalized violence that is routine.
	So this American guy, this is the editor of Scientific American.
	This ordinary violence has always riddled the sport, and it affects all players.
	But black players are disproportionately affected.
	While black men are severely underrepresented in positions of power across football, they're overrepresented on the gridiron.
	Non-white players account for 70% of the NFL.
	Nearly half of Division I college football players are black.
	Further, through a process called racial stacking, coaches racially segregate athletes by playing position.
	These demographic discrepancies place black athletes at higher risk during play.
	Well, I have a solution for this.
	We'll have only white players.
	Sound like a stupid solution?
	That's because what you're suggesting here is idiotic.
	Of course black players are disproportionately affected by things happening on a football field where a disproportionate number of the players are black.
	It's like saying that white people are disproportionately affected by checking in hockey.
	Well, yeah, because most of the players are white.
	The hell are you talking about?
	But the head of Scientific American is a cultural anthropologist.
	I've spent the last decade learning how black college football players navigate the exploitation, racism, and anti-blackness that are fundamental to its current system.
	These are our scientific geniuses out here.
	The same exact people determining what it is that you are supposed to say in the media with regard to ta-science.
	It's amazing stuff.
	By the way, speaking of ta-science, CBS News is now promoting, in the name of ta-science, that children who are fat ought to have surgery on hormones.
	It seems like they're not really talking about fat kids, to be honest with you.
	It seems like this is a proxy for another conversation entirely, but because the media are very into apparently surgically altering children and hormonally treating children.
	But apparently, according to CBS News, quote, children struggling with obesity should be evaluated and treated early and aggressively, including with medications for kids as young as 12 and surgery for those as young as 13, according to new guidelines released on Monday.
	The longstanding practice of watchful waiting or delaying treatment to see whether children and teens outgrow or overcome obesity on their own only worsens the problem that affects more than 14.4 million young people in the United States, according to researchers.
	Left untreated, obesity can lead to lifelong health problems, including high blood pressure, diabetes and depression.
	Waiting doesn't work, says Dr. Ihuma Inelli, co-author of the first guidance on childhood obesity in 15 years for the American Academy of Pediatrics.
	What we see is a continuation of weight gain and the likelihood they'll have obesity in adulthood.
	For the first time, the group's guidance sets ages at which kids and teens should be offered medical treatments like drugs and surgery, in addition to intensive diet, exercise, and other behavior and lifestyle interventions, said Nelly, director of the Center for Healthy Weight and Nutrition at Nationwide Children's Hospital.
	Okay, so just to be clear, culturally, are we done with fat positivity at this point?
	Are we done with this?
	Are we still gonna pretend that the Lizzo body type is just as normal and healthy as any other body type?
	Is that what we're gonna do here?
	Or are we telling kids at 12 that we should hormonally treat them if they're too fat?
	In general, doctors should offer adolescents 12 and older who have obesity access to appropriate drugs.
	And teens 13 and older with severe obesity, referrals for weight loss surgery.
	Those situations may vary.
	The guidelines aim to reset the inaccurate view of obesity as a personal problem, maybe a failure of the person's diligence, said Dr. Sandra Hasink, medical director for the AAP Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight.
	This is not different than you have asthma and now we have an inhaler for you.
	Well, no, actually it is different from you have asthma and we have an inhaler for you, in that obesity is due to a failure of caloric deficit.
	Eat less food.
	Exercise more.
	There are certain people who have congenital defects that lead to obesity.
	That is not 14.4 million young Americans.
	That is not what is happening.
	The actual answer to this is stop putting food in your face.
	Your parents need to stop feeding you crap.
	That is the answer to this, but we're not allowed to say that.
	If you say that, then apparently it's intolerance.
	The better answer is that we have to medicate and surgically alter small children.
	Young people who have a body mass index that meets or exceeds the 95th percentile for kids of the same age and gender are considered obese.
	Obesity affects nearly 20% of kids and teens in the United States.
	The group's guidance takes into consideration that obesity is a biological problem and the condition is a complex chronic disease, says Aaron Kelly, co-director for the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota.
	Obesity is not a lifestyle problem.
	It's not a lifestyle disease.
	It predominantly emerges from biological factors.
	I'm going to need to see the evidence behind the idea that obesity is predominantly due to genetic conditions that are unalterable by diet and exercise.
	This makes no difference.
	This is amazing.
	This is what the science says.
	So apparently now, if you say, perhaps the parents of kids who are overweight should try to have them get more exercise and eat less food and different food and take less calories in, that apparently is really, really bad.
	Dr. Robert Lustig, longtime specialist in pediatric endocrinology.
	He worries.
	He says, I'm not.
	It's not that I'm against the medications.
	I'm against the willy nilly use of those medications without addressing the root cause of the problem.
	Lustig said children have to be evaluated individually to understand all the factors that contribute to obesity.
	He has long blamed too much sugar for the rise in obesity.
	He urges a sharp focus on diet, particularly ultra processed foods that are high in sugar and low in fiber.
	Well, yes.
	But it doesn't matter.
	The American Academy of Pediatrics, they're ready to experiment on the kiddies.
	They're ready to do that incredibly fast.
	And that, of course, is no shock.
	These are the same people who suggest that it's absolutely necessary for your 11-year-old to have hormone treatment when he believes that he is a girl.
	Which, of course, gets laundered then into the media, right?
	These quote unquote scientific narratives get laundered into the media, which is how you end up with articles like this one from the Associated Press quote, States target transgender health care in first bills of 2023.
	It's transgender health care.
	It is not a hormonal and surgical mutilation of children.
	It is health care.
	Gender affirming health care providers and parents of trans youth are the primary targets of these bills, says the AP, many of which seek to criminalize helping a trans child obtain what doctors and psychologists widely consider medically necessary care.
	Well, if the scientists say so.
	The same scientists who say that fat kids should be treated by having a stomach stapling.
	Amazing stuff from our geniuses over here.
	By the way, the people who they cite in this article include, of course, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which is an anti-scientific interest group that takes no account of actual watchful waiting or the simple fact that boys cannot become girls.
	Oh, these folks.
	But again, the narrative trumps reality every single time.
	The narrative trumps reality.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, did you know if you become a Dailyware Plus member, you can get this show without hearing me say, but first, like ever, and redo an ad?
	It is true.
	You need the ad-free experience.
	It saves you time.
	It is wonderful.
	You just get more of me.
	But it's not just this show.
	If you become a member, you'll get other shows like Sunday Special, Debunk, The Matt Walsh Show, The Michael Knowles Show, Morning Wire, all without ads.
	Right now, you can use code SHAPIRO to get two months for free on all annual plans.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash ben.
	Become a member, get this show and so many others ad-free.
	That is dailywire.com slash ben.
	Oh, and when we talk about scientific narratives that have gone awry, What is amazing is that when there's an actual scientific win, it just does not get enormous media coverage.
	So for example, let's say that there had been a discovery, a discovery that lowers the global warming trajectory by 0.5 degrees Celsius, which is a significant amount considering that what we are currently worried about is 2 degrees Celsius in global heating over the course of a century, 2.5 degrees Celsius.
	So lowering the global temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius That'd be like a major thing, right?
	So why isn't it getting major coverage?
	And the answer is because we're never allowed to see the good news.
	If you ever see good news, it might imply that human innovation and creativity are capable of getting us out of our problems as opposed to, you know, wide scale cuts to your living standards.
	So, this is the actual thing that is happening.
	And it happened because, over the course of the last several decades, human beings stopped destroying the ozone layer.
	According to the Jerusalem Post, efforts to lower the use of ozone-depleting substances have succeeded, with the ozone layer healing, and the Earth expected to avoid 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius of global warming.
	1 degree Celsius of global warming is a lot of global warming that has been avoided because the ozone layer healed itself.
	The Earth healed itself because we stopped doing things that were wildly damaging, which suggests that when human beings see a major problem that is coming over the course of time, they're pretty quickly capable of providing substitutes.
	Innovation is a good answer to many of the problems that the Earth faces environmentally, but you're not supposed to see that sort of stuff.
	Again, this would be big news if there are any Invention that came online that lowered the global temperature by one degree Celsius.
	Huge news.
	In fact, what they are currently talking about in terms of taking trillions of dollars out of the global economy would probably lower global temperatures by like a small fraction of that.
	And that gets all the coverage.
	That's stuff where Greta Thunberg looks at you and says, how dare you?
	How dare you drive a car?
	How dare you sell?
	And that's the stuff that gets all the attention.
	But, you know, a move that was made over the course of the last several decades to get rid of, for example, certain materials in your aerosol cans that harm the ozone layer.
	That just doesn't get the same coverage.
	Because, again, it implies that people are pretty creative.
	The ozone layer, compiled of O3, reduces the amount of harmful UV radiation that reaches the Earth's surface.
	A group of substances called chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, commonly used in refrigerants, aerosols, and solvents, were found to cause damage to the ozone layer, posing a risk for human health and the environment.
	In 1987, dozens of countries signed the Montreal Protocol, which obligated signatories to phase out the use of CFCs.
	According to a report published on Monday, the ozone layer is expected to return to the state it was in 1980.
	Which heals the entire ozone layer by around 2066 in the Antarctic, around 2045 in the Arctic, and around the year 2040 in terms of the global average.
	The ozone recovery is on track, according to the latest quadrennial report.
	It's fantastic news.
	The impact the Montreal Protocol has had on climate change mitigation cannot be overstressed.
	Over the last 35 years, the Protocol has become the true champion for the environment, said Meg Secchi, Executive Secretary for the UN Environmental Program's Ozone Secretariat.
	The assessments and reviews undertaken by the Scientific Assessment Panel remain a vital component of the work of the Protocol that helps inform policy and decision makers.
	While the ozone in the upper stratosphere continues to recover, ozone in the lower stratosphere has not yet shown signs of recovery despite simulations showing there should be a small recovery.
	The report noted reconciling this discrepancy is key to ensuring a full understanding of ozone recovery.
	The new report additionally warned that plans to use stratospheric aerosol injection to try and offset global warming could cause damage to the ozone layer.
	This is the use of so-called geoengineering because there are companies now that are seeking to essentially change the composition of the air in order to facilitate global cooling.
	But the point here is that human beings are actually really good at coming up with quick-fix solutions on a lot of this stuff because you still use aerosols, don't you?
	You still use refrigerants that are different, do you not?
	That is a far cry, however, from the idea that we're just going to get rid of carbon-based fossil fuels.
	But this sort of stuff does not get the same sort of coverage.
	It does not get even remotely the same sort of coverage in the mainstream media because good news never gets the coverage that bad news gets when it comes to the alarmist tales that are being told by your legacy media.
	Okay, meanwhile, Republicans are getting set to take over the Congress.
	One of their first moves is that they are going to attempt to defund the IRS, which, of course, would be welcome.
	They're going to repeal the Democrats' army of 87,000 IRS agents.
	And Democrats are giving you a split message on this.
	On the one hand, they say, well, guys, it's not to hire new agents.
	It's to hire people who are, like, in support staff.
	But also, if you cut those agents, then we're going to lose $100 billion in revenue grabbed from the American people.
	They can't have it both ways.
	If all we're worried about is just getting rid of a few computer programmers, then why are you saying that you're going to take in less money?
	Anyway, House Republicans, according to the Daily Wire, who are now in control of the legislative body, voted Monday evening to cut billions of dollars to the IRS after the agency received a significant boost in funding in the Democrat Inflation Reduction Act.
	House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was just elected to the position, hailed the passage of the bill by a 221 to 210 vote.
	He said in a statement, The increase in funding was estimated to be north of $80 billion over 10 years.
	Now, realistically speaking, are the 87,000 IRS agents gonna go away?
	of 87,000 IRS agents in our very first day in the majority.
	Promises made, promises kept.
	The increase in funding was estimated to be north of $80 billion over 10 years.
	Now, realistically speaking, are the 87,000 IRS agents going to go away?
	No, because the bill is unlikely to pass in the Senate.
	However, the bill included a bunch of good provisions that Democrats are going to have to run against, including curbing wasteful government spending that is raising the price of groceries, gas, cars, and housing, and growing the national debt, moving supply chains away from China, and all the rest.
	So, this is good.
	Other good things that the House GOP has been doing?
	They are aiming a weaponization panel at the DOJ.
	Apparently this is a very bad thing according to Politico.
	Here is the rule.
	When the legislative branch does oversight of the executive branch, and the executive is a Republican and the legislative are Democrats, this is good.
	It's an unmitigated good.
	It's democracy at work.
	It's how the Republic ought to function.
	When there are Republicans in the legislature doing oversight on a Democratic president, it is the threat of fascism, cruelty, insanity.
	According to Politico, House Republicans are declaring what amounts to an investigative war on the Biden administration, pledging to probe, quote, ongoing criminal investigations at the DOJ.
	Veterans of some of the Congress's major recent probes in the department itself predict they will be told to pound sand.
	GOP lawmakers are dramatically escalating their standoff with the administration by launching a wide range investigative panel to probe what they call the weaponization of government.
	It's a broad mandate that will allow the party to look into any government agency or program that it views as suspect.
	This includes the FBI, IRS, and the intelligence community.
	According to Politico, it's an opening salvo that promises to escalate quickly.
	The DOJ is certain to fiercely protect its most sensitive investigative files.
	Prosecutors are not going to hand over information on open criminal probes, according to legal experts.
	The resulting conflict promises to erode the already strained relationship between the DOJ and congressional Republicans.
	This will be a separation of powers hornet's nest, said former House General Counsel Stan Brand, who represented witnesses before the January 6th Select Committee.
	In order to insulate the process from taint, DOJ will have to draw clear lines in the sand over what they will provide.
	Now, this sort of oversight is deeply necessary considering the malfeasance of the FBI during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Hillary Clinton, during the investigation into Carter Page, The Mueller investigation, right?
	There's a lot here to worry about the DOJ and its weaponization against, for example, say parents.
	The use of Merrick Garland's DOJ to go after parents who are angry at school boards.
	There's gonna be a lot to investigate here.
	Kevin McCarthy has indicated to House Republicans that Jim Jordan is going to lead that, which is great.
	Jim Jordan is an absolute bulldog on this sort of stuff.
	Representative Dan Bishop of North Carolina, who pushed for the investigative body for months, is viewed as a likely member.
	Thomas Massey of Kentucky, another bulldog, has said publicly he expects to participate as well.
	The panel was greenlit after months-long push by conservatives growing from a fringe idea to a formal demand made by several McCarthy holdouts last month.
	Jordan has made clear he is willing to go full tilt at the Biden administration using subpoenas if necessary.
	Many areas the new panel plans to target are ones Jordan has already identified in letters saying he would move to compel testimony.
	Presumably this will include investigations into not only the DOJ, but also into Department of Homeland Security.
	It will include investigations into the misuse of resources at the CIA and the FBI.
	All of this is well worthwhile.
	So it's good to finally see some business being done in the House of Representatives.
	Alrighty, well folks, I'd be remiss if I didn't comment on the dumbest story of the day.
	Mars Company has decided that they are going to woke virtue signal they have created an all-female bag of M&Ms.
	Now, it's not females in the M&Ms.
	They're actually like M&Ms, you know, like the little characters.
	They're making a bag with just the female M&Ms.
	Are you excited, ladies?
	Are you excited?
	The company announced the feminist-forward candy wrappers on Thursday, according to Fox 7 Austin, saying it will exclusively display M&M's female characters, the green, brown, and most recently introduced purple M&M.
	In addition to featuring the three female M&M's on the wrapper, each package in the limited run will only include the corresponding green, brown, and purple candy-coated chocolates.
	The package will feature the female M&M's flipped upside down to represent how women are flipping how they define success.
	Wow, they're upside down also because women are flipping how they define success.
	The series will come in milk chocolate, peanut, and peanut butter varieties.
	Oh, I was getting afraid there.
	I'm glad that at least some of these M&Ms will have nuts to represent the transgender community.
	So we have to ensure that some of the M&Ms are actual trans women.
	We wouldn't want these to be cisgender M&Ms.
	So good news, some of the female M&Ms will in fact have nuts.
	The movie's the latest in a series of marketing moves M&M's has made to promote inclusivity.
	Its previous announcements involved the introduction of the purple female M&M who represents body positivity and self-acceptance.
	Well, I'm sure M&M would love people to accept body positivity because you eat enough of them and you get fat.
	That is what they are.
	They are a candy.
	Early in 2022, Mars announced it would alter its mascots to reflect the more dynamic, progressive world we live in, saying the refreshed M&M's brand will include a more modern take on the looks of our beloved characters.
	So, that's exciting.
	Mars Wrigley North America Chief Marketing Officer, Gabrielle Wesley, explained the move.
	Quote, Women all over the world are flipping how they define success and happiness while challenging the status quo.
	So we are thrilled to be able to recognize and celebrate them.
	And who better to help us on that mission than our own powerhouse, spokes candies, green, brown, and purple.
	Ah, so moving.
	So incredible.
	So unbelievably stupid.
	So women, do you feel represented now because of the green, purple, and brown M&Ms on the M&M package that you're guzzling down lonely in your apartment with your wine and your cat?
	How's that going for you?
	Amazing, amazing.
	But at least you feel represented.
	That's the important thing.
	Honestly, I'm mostly just happy because if it's an all-female M&M, I assume that it costs 77 cents on the dollar of what the regular M&Ms would cost, right?
	That's how this works.
	Also, do not ask the female MNMs for directions.
	It's just not going to go particularly well.
	Corporate America, man.
	Filled with morons.
	But until there are alternatives, this is what we're going to have to suffer with.
	So I suppose we're going to have to launch Jeremy's Candy or something.
	To fight with the woke corporate American infrastructure.
	So stupid.
	And the way this works is that if I make jokes about this on the show, if I talk about this, then the entire left-wing media infrastructure, he's joking about M&Ms.
	Why is he joking about it?
	Can't he?
	Why is he taking it so seriously?
	Why is he?
	What?
	No, no, he can't pay attention.
	Why is he making a big deal out of this?
	Face tattoo syndrome.
	It's a real thing.
	As I've explained before on the program, face tattoo syndrome is where you walk into Starbucks and there's some weird guy with a face tattoo.
	And you're looking at his face tattoo because it's weird.
	He's got a big tattoo on his face.
	And he's like, what are you looking at?
	Like, your face tattoo.
	That's what I'm looking at.
	Because you're begging for attention because you put a tattoo on your face.
	And that's what all these corporations are doing.
	They're woke signaling.
	And then when you notice the woke signal, they're like, why are you noticing that we're woke signaling?
	What's wrong with you?
	Why are you even caring?
	Why do you even care?
	Huh?
	You should care more.
	But you shouldn't care.
	Well, again, as I say, the important thing is that you feel represented by your M&Ms.
	You don't have anything else to represent you, you know, like family or community, but you do have a corporate brand seeking to take money out of your pocket to make you fat and giving you colorful M&Ms that represent female characters in the process.
	Exciting stuff.
	Alrighty guys, the rest of the show is continuing right now.
	You're not going to want to miss it.
	We'll be getting into the rap battle between Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Dr. Dre, plus the New York Times whining so much about why Ron DeSantis won't talk to them.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

▲