Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:06:02

If You’re Black And Cops Kill You, The Vice President Will Speak At Your Funeral | Ep. 1660

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Vice President Kamala Harris shows up to eulogize Tyree Nichols, the FBI searches Joe Biden's house, and we examine a line of viral TikTok videos chiding men for glancing at women at the gym.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	So there are some crime stories that are national and there are some crime stories that are local.
	And the way that we can tell a national crime story from a local crime story is whether it fits the left-wing narrative, or if it even comes close to fitting the left-wing narrative.
	So, if, for example, you have white cops, and those white cops kill a white person, that is not a national news story, that is just a local news story.
	And it requires no national attention.
	It requires that the media cover it for like a brief second in time and then it blips out of existence.
	Certainly no major politicians attend the funeral of the person who was killed.
	If, however, you have a story that makes national waves because the left believes that it fits a narrative, even if it doesn't quite fit the narrative, then it becomes a national news story.
	And you have major politicians and big political figures arriving from All over the country.
	In order to eulogize the person who was killed.
	Not because they actually care about the person who was killed.
	They don't know that person from Adam.
	They don't know that person's parents.
	They've never heard of that person.
	But because it fits the narrative.
	And there is something that is quite gross about this.
	Truly.
	Because it is, in fact, exploitative.
	It is exploitative to go to the funeral of a person you've never met and you've never heard of until one second ago.
	Explicitly, in order to make a political point about, for example, policing in the United States or the inherent systemic racism of the United States.
	Well, that's precisely what happened yesterday.
	Tyree Nichols, a 29-year-old black man who was killed in confrontation with five black police officers.
	When I say in confrontation, I mean they literally held his arms behind his back and they were clocking him.
	And it's on video.
	And those five guys are going to be tried for second-degree murder.
	They've already been arrested.
	Well, this didn't fit quite the left-wing narrative of white-on-black, cop-on-criminal, or potential criminal, or innocent-victim violence.
	Didn't fit that narrative, but it was close enough, and so the media ran with it.
	It turned into a whole discussion, as we've discussed, about white supremacy and its bleed-over effects into black police departments, because the Memphis Police Department is 58% black, and the head of the police department in Memphis is black, and it's a majority-black city.
	This means that Tyree Nichols, who again, Kamala Harris has never met Tyree Nichols.
	Kamala Harris doesn't know Tyree Nichols.
	Kamala Harris could have seen Tyree Nichols on the street and have recognized him or his parents.
	She arrives at this funeral.
	When politicians do this sort of stuff, when they do this sort of stuff, the thing you have to think about is why.
	So Kamala Harris shows up at the funeral to eulogize Tyree Nichols.
	And here's what the vice president of the United States had to say.
	We're here to celebrate the life of Tyree Nichols.
	Mrs. Wells, Mr. Wells, you have been extraordinary in terms of your strength, your courage, and your grace.
	I was, as a senator, as a United States senator, a co-author of the original George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
	And as Vice President of the United States, we demand that Congress pass the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act.
	Joe Biden will sign it!
	By the way, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is far overbroad.
	Senator Tim Scott provided some actual fixes to the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that would have additionally funded the police for training and for hiring, and the Democrats rejected that.
	Out of hand, they didn't even bring up that potential bill for a vote.
	But again, go back to the basic notion here.
	The Tyree Nichols story does not actually fit the narrative that the left wishes to push.
	That narrative, of course, is that police all over the country are exactly the same as the cops in this particular situation.
	The narrative is that there is a broad systemic racism that's baked into the cake when it comes to police departments, and Tyree Nichols fit that.
	So if you have a black victim in a case of police violence, this is now enough for the Vice President of the United States to come in and essentially politic.
	In a funeral.
	I mean, there's something pretty gross about politicking at a funeral.
	It wasn't just Kamala Harris.
	You have race baiter professional Al Sharpton showing up to give a eulogy.
	Again, Al Sharpton didn't know Tyree Nichols.
	Al Sharpton has never heard of Tyree Nichols.
	But here is Al Sharpton at the funeral, eulogizing a person he never met and didn't know.
	There is something that's really kind of just icky about that.
	Here's Al Sharpton.
	And the reason why, Mr. and Mrs. Wells, what happened to Tyree is so personal to me, is that five black men that wouldn't have had a job in the police department, in the city that Dr. King lost his life, not far away from that balcony, you beat a brother to death.
	There's nothing more insulting and offensive to those of us that fight to open doors that you walk through those doors and act like the folks we had to fight for to get you through them doors.
	So now he's essentially accusing those black police officers of being complicit in racism.
	Right again, there are elements of white supremacy, and Al Sharpton actually did say, he suggested at this funeral, that if Terry Nichols had been white, black police officers would not have acted this way, which of course is not true.
	I mean, that cops beat white people on a regular basis, okay?
	The notion that white people are somehow immune to police brutality or instances of police violence is just a falsehood, but here is Al Sharpton telling it.
	How do you have the same department that can keep crime down on one side of town without beating folk to death?
	But you can't do it on the other side of town unless you feel that you can get away with it there.
	I can't speak for everybody in Memphis.
	I can't speak for everybody gathering.
	But for me, I believe that if that man had been white, you wouldn't have beat him like that that night.
	Ah, so it is racism.
	Again, this is at a funeral, folks.
	This is not at a political event.
	This is at a funeral.
	There's a long history of Democrats doing this sort of stuff.
	When Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash, you saw a bunch of Democratic politicians arrive to essentially use his funeral as a jumping-off point for campaigns.
	You see, after a mass shooting in Arizona, you saw Barack Obama go there and stump for gun control.
	This sort of stuff is not rare, unfortunately, but it is really ugly.
	There's a fascinating opinion piece from Charles Blow, I know that that is usually not the case, in which the blindness of this becomes absolutely clear because he acknowledges that this is really, really gross.
	He acknowledges that there is something ugly about this, and yet he still continues to do it.
	He still continues to do that.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the fact that there are a lot of corporations out there who really hate your guts, and they use the money that you give them to fund a bunch of causes that you don't particularly like.
	During the Black Lives Matter riots, they put up the black square with your money.
	During gay pride month, they put up the trans pride progress flag on their website.
	As you sponsor them, essentially with your cash.
	Why would you do that when you don't have to do that?
	This is one reason why you might think about switching over to PeerTalk.
	PeerTalk is the antidote to woke wireless companies.
	Proudly veteran-owned, employs a U.S.-based customer service team.
	Absolutely does not spend money on these sorts of causes.
	PeerTalk's service is fantastic.
	It's one of the largest networks in the country.
	You can get data, talk, and text for as low as $30 a month.
	That's probably half of what you're paying Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
	You can switch over to PeerTalk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
	And your first month is guaranteed risk-free.
	Try it.
	If you're not completely happy with the service, you will get your money back.
	I switched over to Pure Talk for all my business calls, and it works just great.
	This year, make it a goal to support the companies who actually don't hate your guts.
	Go to puretalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO, save 50% off your very first month of coverage.
	That's puretalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
	Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
	Again, puretalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO to get started.
	Okay, so Charles Bowe has a piece where he essentially acknowledges the point that I'm making.
	It's called Robbed of Space to Mourn in the New York Times today.
	And he talks about the fact that the parents of Tyree Nichols, when they enter the church where this eulogy is taking place, where the service is taking place, the cameras are all over them.
	And he says, her grief and mourning of Tyree Nichols' mom, her grief and mourning were not her own.
	They could not be walled off from the political trauma in which she was thrust and caught.
	Not only is their loss staggering, their ability to grieve that loss has also been altered and interrupted, converted into politics and performance.
	Privacy is unavailable to them.
	He says, mourning, he's correct, by the way, mourning in public on repeat under and in front of lights and cameras isn't part of the normal grieving process.
	Many people can hardly understand their emotion, let alone live with the pressure of constantly being asked to form those feelings into sound bites.
	But here's the thing, this is the part where, again, the left acknowledges what it's doing here in exploiting the death of a human being is really yucky.
	It's really quite disgusting.
	But quote, at the funeral, I sat in front of Donna Gates Bullard, What is Charles Blow doing at the funeral?
	Did he know Tyree Nichols' family?
	Did he know Tyree Nichols?
	I mean, the answer is no.
	And of course, he says that he's attended many of these things.
	When I first interviewed Trayvon Martin's mother, she was consumed and shrunken by grief.
	When I spent the day with Sam DuBose's family in 2015, his mom was so drained she needed to cling to me just to leave the car and walk into a TV interview.
	So, aren't you one of the people who is propagating The victimization of families in the name of a broader political narrative?
	There's something wrong with a culture in which this sort of stuff happens.
	You want to have a political debate about what we should do with police departments?
	That is fine.
	But going to funerals and using the funeral as sort of the jumping off point to make the political point?
	It's no less cynical now than when it was done by Marc Anthony at Julius Caesar's funeral, going all the way back to the Roman Empire.
	And of course, this does play into the broader left-wing narrative where you have Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, talking about how we need to now revise policing in the United States.
	This is really what this is all about.
	It's about making a political point.
	Because five years from now, are they going to be checking in on Tyree?
	Is Kamala Harris going to be checking in on Tyree Nichols' family after she leaves office?
	The answer is no, of course.
	Here's Dick Durbin.
	Listen, I agree with Chairman Jordan, in terms of what happened sadly to Tyree Nichols, it was indefensible, reprehensible.
	There's just no excuse for it.
	And I also agree with the premise that we cannot mandate virtue by law.
	That just isn't going to happen.
	But still, we should take an honest look at policing in America today and acknowledge the obvious.
	We all want The most radical case, of course, being made by Representative Jamal Bowman, who is one of the most radical members of Congress from New York.
	He says that the real issue here, get ready for this one, is climate change.
	You know, instead of adding more cops, we need to invest in climate, is what he says.
	The most radical case, of course, being made by Representative Jamal Bowman, who is one of the most radical members of Congress from New York. He says that the real issue here, get ready for this one, is climate change. You know, instead of adding more cops, we need to invest in climate, is what he says. What?
	We have to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
	We have to introduce and pass the People's Justice Guarantee so community members can reimagine and restructure public safety in our country.
	The research shows we need a public health approach to public safety.
	You want to make us safer?
	Invest in poverty and ending poverty.
	Invest in housing.
	Invest in climate.
	Invest in education.
	That is how We make our country safer.
	What we're doing is adding more police and feeding the prison industrial complex.
	Okay, it's all exploitation.
	And that so much media coverage is driven by exploitation.
	You find an instance, like one particular instance, and then you suggest that it is statistically representative of a broad trend, and then you just magnify the instance.
	Well, you're actually going to have to show a connection here in order to get the politics done.
	But they're not going to bother doing that.
	So that's why you send Kamala Harris to go and speak at a funeral where she doesn't know the family, doesn't know the person.
	Again, something gross about that.
	Meanwhile, the FBI has apparently now searched Joe Biden's home.
	According to CNBC.com, FBI agents on Wednesday morning searched the Rehoboth Beach Delaware home of President Biden for more than three hours, they found no documents marked classified, according to his personal lawyer.
	Agents did take for further review some materials and handwritten notes that appeared to relate to his time as vice president.
	Now, again, that doesn't mean there was no classified material.
	There could very well be classified material that wasn't actually labeled classified.
	What they mean is that there wasn't a document that had a big stamp on it that said top secret.
	But if the vice president was taking home classified notes and he didn't label it classified, that would still be classified material.
	A senior law enforcement source who spoke with NBC News corroborated the lawyer's characterization of the outcome of the FBI search.
	But this is really no longer the issue.
	It's not even what documents were found, what documents were not found on the premises at Joe Biden's house or at the Penn-Biden Center for Chinese Grift.
	The real question is the cover-up.
	Because, again, it turns out that Joe Biden's documents were found at the Penn-Biden Center before the election.
	We only found out about it in January.
	Well, now, a representative, a top House Republican, James Comer from Kentucky, he says that the top lawyer for the National Archives was told not to reveal any information about the discovery of classified documents in Joe Biden's possession before the election.
	Here's Representative Comer.
	I mean, if this is true, that's an actual scandal.
	That's a cover-up.
	Right before the National Archives came in, they handed us a letter from the Department of Justice informing them and us that the General Counsel for the National Archives wasn't allowed to say anything about the Biden documents.
	If you go on the National Archives website, there's pages and pages of press releases and information about the FBI's raid into Mar-a-Lago and Donald Trump's possession of classified documents.
	But there's nothing on the website about Joe Biden.
	So we asked the general counsel, why were there no press releases sent on Joe Biden once it was determined that he had classified documents in his possession?
	And the counsel said that he did do press releases, but he was ordered and told they couldn't be published.
	or by whom?
	By presumably somebody at the administration.
	Merrick Garland at DOJ or something like that.
	According to the Washington Examiner, the National Archives informed its own Inspector General on November 3rd.
	The Washedog contacted the DOJ on November 4th, so a couple of days before the election.
	This was widely known inside the government.
	And yet nothing came out about it until January.
	Now, the National Archives was fine with weighing in on the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago.
	They weighed in in January 2022, twice in February 2022, in October 2022.
	So, between the time that they knew that there were documents that shouldn't have been at Joe Biden's house and the time that they revealed that fact, they released three separate press releases on Donald Trump and Mar-a-Lago.
	If, as they say, the cover-up is usually greater than the crime, this would be an interesting instance of that.
	We'll get to the White House counsel trying to respond to this and failing in just one second.
	First, we have to talk about your privacy.
	So the fact is that the government is very interested, apparently, in Joe Biden's privacy and keeping classified documents next to his throwback Corvette at his house.
	But they're not interested in your privacy very much.
	They like to monitor you.
	They like to keep tabs on you.
	So do the big companies.
	They like to take all your data and then use all of that data against you.
	This is why I use ExpressVPN.
	There are a lot of things I don't like about the government, about the tech giants, but there's only so much I can do.
	Well, one thing I can do is I can protect my private data by using a VPN, and ExpressVPN is the best VPN.
	For less than seven bucks per month, you can join me and fight back against big tech by using ExpressVPN.
	ExpressVPN helps you anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your IP address so they can't match any activity back to you.
	If you don't like big tech tracking you and selling your personal data for profit, you can fight back by using ExpressVPN.
	Visit expressvpn.com right now.
	Get three extra months of ExpressVPN for free.
	That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-v-p-n-dot-com-slash-ben.
	Again, expressvpn.com-slash-ben.
	That is the best way to protect your online privacy.
	Super easy to use.
	One button to download it, one click, and now it's activated.
	Go check them out right now.
	Expressvpn.com-slash-ben to get started.
	Okay, so the White House Counsel Office, they're trying to respond to the possibility of a cover-up.
	White House Counsel Spokesperson Ian Sams, he will not say if the FBI has actually conducted other searches.
	That is possible.
	Has the FBI conducted any searches of any other locations associated with the President that you or the White House is aware of?
	Look, I think we're providing information as this goes on and answering questions about the search activities as they've been happening.
	I don't want to speak too much to the DOJ's practices in an ongoing investigation.
	I can say, you know, that we have cooperated fully.
	The President's personal attorneys have provided information to DOJ.
	addressed openly and directly the searches that were conducted first at the president's Wilmington residence and then today.
	Well, Sam's was asked about whether Biden or anyone in the administration silenced the National Archives, and here's what he had to say.
	Did anyone at the White House at any point tell the National Archives in any form that they could not release a press release about the discovery of classified What's that in reference to?
	There's reporting that came from the House Oversight Committee.
	Chairman James Comer, who says that in his conversations with the National Archives, they communicated that they were told, the Archives was told it could not release a press release.
	Yeah, I don't know anything about that.
	If that's actually what he said, it's probably better to ask the archives if that's actually what was said and try to understand a little bit more what he meant.
	Well, we're asking you.
	I mean, you are the representative for the White House, so presumably you should know whether somebody at the White House or in the administration ordered the National Archives to do the thing.
	So kicking it back to the National Archives is rather fascinating.
	He insists, of course, that the White House has been transparent.
	That, of course, is not true.
	If they'd been transparent, they wouldn't have waited two months just past the election in order to announce that Joe Biden had been keeping classified documents pretty much everywhere.
	Like in his bathroom, next to the toilet, for his reading material.
	Underneath the old copies of Time Magazine that he likes to browse while he's watching Matlock at night.
	Here's Ian Sams.
	Yeah, I think we've been pretty transparent from the very beginning with providing information as it occurs throughout this process.
	We have released probably thousands of words of statements from the President's personal attorney and the White House Counsel's Office about the process that has been undertaken here.
	Now he was asked about who had access to these documents, which of course is sort of the secondary scandal.
	It's not just that Joe Biden brought this stuff home.
	It's that he left it in a garage and that one of the people who was renting his house apparently for a period of three months, I guess, was Hunter Biden, who happens to be an absolute derelict of a human being who runs around trafficking in the Biden name when he is not attempting to solicit his employees for sex so that he will pay their salaries.
	Was there any reason to believe that anybody else in the Biden family would have also had access to these same documents?
	Yeah, I'm not going to speak to sort of the negotiations or discussions or collaborations between the president's personal attorney and DOJ in establishing the search.
	We're cooperating fully with the Justice Department.
	We're cooperating fully with the Justice Department and ensuring that they have access to the House, the Rehoboth House today, the Wilmington House previously, to be able to do a thorough search.
	And it's because the President is moving quickly to get them access to the information that they need so that they can move forward with a thorough review.
	One of the pieces of information that you might want, actually, is whether Hunter Biden actually had access to the documents.
	That would be one of the things that you want.
	Speaking of Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden is now doing something that is legally ridiculous, but it's making a lot of headlines because, again, the media, because Biden-Hunter is related to Joe, that means that they will go into knee-jerk defense of one of the worst human beings In America.
	And so Hunter Biden apparently his lawyers have now sent a series of quote unquote blistering letters to state and federal prosecutors urging criminal investigations into those who accessed and disseminated his personal data and then sent a separate letter threatening Fox News host Tucker Carlson with a defamation lawsuit.
	This is according to Washington Post.
	So a few things.
	One.
	No.
	You left your laptop at a repair person's place.
	You gave that person access to all the materials on that laptop.
	You then forgot about the laptop for a period of years.
	No, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that you abandoned your personal property because you are a drug-addicted derelict.
	That is what happened.
	And as far as Tucker Carlson suggesting that you are, in fact, a drug-addicted derelict and using colorful language to do so, That's not going to... You think that's going to rise to the level of defamation?
	Number one, you're a public figure, so you have to actually show malice that he maliciously said something false.
	I'm not sure what exactly anybody could say about Hunter Biden that would be false at this point.
	I guess that he's trying to claim that because there was original reporting suggesting that he paid like $50,000 a month and then it turned out that reporting was not true and it was $50,000 over the course of three months for his rent, that that's a defamation, that is not even remotely a defamation lawsuit.
	That does not rise to the level of a defamation lawsuit under any circumstances, but he is sending blistering letters.
	And that, of course, is the basic idea.
	If he sends blistering letters, the media can pretend that he's very offended.
	He claims that he has been defamed by Fox News in a story in which Carlson said that Biden had paid $50,000 in rent to his dad.
	In reality, Hunter Biden was actually paying $49,910 every three months for office space in Washington.
	Now, again, the original reporting that Tucker was talking about was not by Fox.
	So if it turns out that he wasn't actually paying his dad for rent, we reported on the show as well, and it turns out that was wrong, right?
	It turns out that the original reporting by Daily Caller was wrong.
	Sometimes, we read reports on the show.
	Those reports are wrong.
	That's not defamation.
	That doesn't rise to the level of defamation.
	But Hunter Biden's just threatening people at this point, pretending that he has some sort of clean reputation to protect.
	Uh, no.
	The answer there is no.
	Okay, meanwhile, in other news, the Federal Reserve did in fact raise the rates a quarter point.
	They expect more increases in the interest rates.
	They're slowing the rate of the interest rate increases because they think that they have slowed They're beginning to slow inflation to the extent necessary in order to kind of put the genie back in the bottle.
	According to CNBC, aligning with market expectations, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee boosted the Fed funds rate by 0.25 percentage points.
	That's 25 basis points.
	That takes it to a target range of 4.5 to 4.75 percent.
	That is the highest since October of 2007.
	The move marks the eighth increase in a process that began in March 2022.
	The Fed is still targeting hikes to bring down inflation, and the post-meeting statement noted inflation has eased somewhat but remains elevated, which is a tweak on previous language.
	Fed Chairman Jerome Powell said inflation data received over the past three months show a welcome reduction in the monthly pace of increases.
	While recent developments are encouraging, we will need substantially more evidence to be confident that inflation is on a sustained downward path.
	But stocks actually dropped on this news because people were hoping That Powell was basically going to say there are no more increases coming.
	There are, in fact, more interest rate increases coming, and there need to be more interest rate increases coming.
	Meanwhile, Kevin McCarthy and Joe Biden are now negotiating over the debt limit and the debt ceiling.
	Joe Biden is looking for Republicans to give him a way out.
	What he's looking for is for Republicans to be intransigent on the debt ceiling so that he can then blame them when the economy stagnates, which is presumably what's going to happen over the course of the next few months.
	McCarthy and Biden had a meeting The other day on this, in which Biden told McCarthy there was room for discussion about addressing America's deficit, but he insisted that Congress would have to pass a debt limit increase with no strings attached to avoid a financial cataclysm, which of course is ridiculous.
	There can be strings attached, but McCarthy should do, as I've suggested many times over, pick 10 things that the American public hates, put that in the debt ceiling negotiations, and force Biden to defend that.
	Force Biden to defend shutting down the government in order to preserve 10 things that Americans hate.
	McCarthy, to his credit, has not said that he's going to try to restructure Social Security or Medicare on the basis of this.
	That is ineffective.
	It is not going to work.
	Anybody who tells you otherwise is not a purist.
	They're expecting you to be a dope and not recognize what they're doing.
	But the reality is you can get a political win out of this thing if you are very circumspect about how you approach it.
	It is worth noting here that Joe Biden, for all of his talk about how important it is to raise the debt ceiling, back in 2006, Joe Biden was perfectly fine with rejecting an increase in the debt ceiling.
	Here he was back in 2006 attacking George W. Bush's administration.
	He said, quote, because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase.
	So it's always fun to watch as Democrats flip in In real time.
	And the media just pretend that none of it ever happened in the first place.
	OK, in just one second, we need to get to the controversy over Ilhan Omar being denied a spot on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	Matt Gaetz, for some reason, is now coming out and defending Ilhan Omar on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I'm sorry, is just an absurdity.
	And Gaetz is wrong on this.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about a simple fact.
	You will die.
	I know.
	Bad news.
	Didn't mean to break it to you this way, but we are all going to plot at some point.
	And that means that you need life insurance.
	Anyone who's a responsible human being needs life insurance.
	The simple fact is, if you've got a family, and you plot, it's not just the funeral costs, it's your loss of income that's going to be a serious problem.
	And the life insurance that you get through your job probably is not going to cover what you need.
	Not only that, the more time you wait, the more expensive the life insurance is going to get.
	You get unhealthier, you get older, your life insurance premiums go up.
	Instead, head on over right now, like today, to Policy Genius.
	PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and find your very lowest price.
	With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just 17 bucks per month for 500 grand 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 is private.
	Your loved ones deserve a financial safety net, and you deserve a smarter way to find and buy it.
	Go to PolicyGenius.com slash Shapiro.
	Get the life insurance you need.
	It's just a thing you should do as a responsible human being.
	Policygenius.com slash Shapiro and get that life insurance today.
	Okay, so controversy has now broken out about whether Ilhan Omar should be denied a spot on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	The answer is, of course, she should.
	She's a raging anti-Semite.
	She claims, of course, that she is an accidental anti-Semite, which is weird since she spent pretty much her entire career being a raging anti-Semite, so much so that even left-wing Jewish groups in the Minnesota community have approached her and been like, why are you so anti-Semitic?
	Can you stop it?
	And she's like, shut up.
	There are reports from Minneapolis Star Tribune essentially suggesting as much.
	She is a disaster area.
	The fact is the Democrats set this precedent.
	The precedent is that if you have out-of-the-box crazy opinions, you shouldn't be on a committee, right?
	This is why they tried to deny a committee spot to Marjorie Taylor Greene over ugly things that were said.
	By the way, what Marjorie Taylor Greene has said about Jews is way less ugly than what Ilhan Omar has said about Jews.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene just put up a weird post about how Jews controlled space lasers, which was absurd on its face.
	Ilhan Omar has suggested that Jews control world finance and that Israel is akin to the Taliban and Hamas.
	So yeah, she's way worse.
	Yet Matt Gaetz is out there defending her, which I don't understand in the slightest.
	It makes no sense to me.
	Greg Sargent is now trying to defend Matt Gaetz in a very weird turn of events.
	I will say, the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to people who are ragingly anti-Semitic Muslims is pretty absurd.
	That is what Greg Sargent is doing over at the Washington Post.
	He says, sure, House Republicans are claiming that she's an anti-Semite.
	And sure, she says stuff that is anti-Semitic on a fairly regular basis.
	But also, she's a Muslim.
	And that means that you're not allowed to point out that she is any of those things.
	As for the charge of bigotry, says Greg Sargent, ironically enough, there may not be another member of Congress who has personally faced as much bigotry as Omar, a Muslim who arrived in the United States as a refugee decades ago.
	The soft bigotry of low expectations, the idea that if you're a Muslim, you get to be as radically anti-Jewish as you want to be, is pretty astonishing.
	And yet that is the line the media are going to take on this thing.
	Okay, meanwhile, the presidential race is heating up.
	Again, we have this consistently ongoing game now of Ron DeSantis winning victories in Florida and Donald Trump yelling at objects.
	And so that brings us to today's episode of Good Trump, Bad Trump.
	Okay, so here we have good Trump.
	Here, we have bad Trump.
	And, um, which one is gonna be today?
	Sadly, we got some bad Trump yesterday.
	The bad Trump came in the form of a series of posts that he put up attacking Ron DeSantis as a quote-unquote rhino globalist.
	A rhino globalist?
	What exactly made Ron DeSantis a rhino globalist?
	That he said, at one point, that he wanted to be like then-GOP congressional leader Paul Ryan.
	Now, I'm old enough to remember when Paul Ryan was not a person who was considered wildly left-wing, considering that his main mission in life was to restructure entitlement programs.
	This does not make you a rhino.
	In fact, I would suggest that trying to leave entitlements in place as a matter of principle is a way of copping out on a major issue.
	But this makes Ron DeSantis a rhino globalist, says Donald Trump.
	That was not his only post.
	He also continued to attack Ron DeSantis by suggesting, quote, Remember, I was 233 and 20 in midterms.
	I got 1.2 million more votes than Ron DeSanctimonious in the great state of Florida.
	Also, 12 million more votes in 2020 than 2016 and won.
	Okay, you didn't win.
	If you won, you'd be in the White House right now.
	And most of the crap that's happening wouldn't have happened.
	I voted for you.
	I wanted you to win.
	You didn't.
	You got 1.2 million more votes than Ron DeSantis in Florida in a presidential race.
	Presidential races earn more votes than gubernatorial races in off years, which is exactly what happened.
	The point is Ron DeSantis won by 20 points in the last race in Florida and you did not win.
	So there is that.
	You won Florida and you lost the national election.
	So I don't know what to tell you here.
	I don't know.
	Trump doesn't have a strategy.
	You would suggest normally that the strategy is attack the frontrunner, which kind of suggests that DeSantis is the frontrunner and not Trump, which is weird, right?
	DeSantis hasn't said word one about Trump, and Trump is just yelling at him.
	He's just right in his ear yelling at him, trying to drive DeSantis to respond to him.
	Meanwhile, DeSantis is out there winning victories.
	So Ron DeSantis, you'll recall just a few days ago, the state of Florida rejected an AP curriculum for African-American studies that included a bunch of BLM critical race theory nonsense.
	Well, now he's actually won a victory because the college board released an official curriculum for its new AP placement course in African-American studies.
	It's not that you can't teach African-American studies in the state of Florida.
	It's that the state is not going to sponsor critical race theory garbage in the schools.
	And so the college board went back to the drawing board and they stripped a lot of the subject matter that was critical race theory.
	According to the New York Times, the College Board purged the names of many black writers and scholars associated with critical race theory, the queer experience, and black feminism.
	It ushered out some politically fraught topics like Black Lives Matter from the formal curriculum.
	It also added something new.
	Black conservatism is now offered as an idea for a research project.
	Okay, I have a question.
	Why is that so bad?
	Why is any of that bad?
	That is good.
	And the fact that the College Board is now stripping out certain elements of the African American Studies program that were explicitly designed at the argument that America and all of its institutions are systemically racist and must be torn to the ground?
	The fact that DeSantis won on that is a very good thing.
	And by the way, you can tell who the Democrats are truly afraid of these days because those are the people they're attacking.
	Joy Reid over on MSNBC.
	She made honestly what I think is the best sell I've ever heard for the state of Florida on MSNBC.
	And I'm a person who's been unofficially dubbed the tourism minister of the state of Florida.
	Here is Joy Reid.
	What DeSantis is doing is intentional, in order to peel off Trump's Republican voters and get them on his side ahead of his presidential bid in 2024.
	He's turning Florida into a right-wing paradise.
	He's barring public high schools from teaching AP African American studies.
	He's taking aim at drag performances, even suggesting that he would urge the state's Child Protective Services to investigate parents who take their own kids to one.
	He's actively trying to ban COVID vaccine mandates and restricting mask rules, while at the same time calling for probes into supposed wrongdoing linked to the vaccine.
	And he's doing all of this while making sure that anyone can walk around with a gun, no permit required.
	It's a right-wing fantasy land, like Disney World, but in hell.
	Yeah.
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, so go away and stay out and don't come to Disneyland.
	That's amazing.
	That sounds so good.
	Honestly, he should just cut that as a commercial.
	That is an amazing pitch for the state of Florida.
	We are banning the critical race theory teaching.
	We are going after drag queen story hours targeting children.
	We are pro-cop in this state.
	Where's the bad stuff there?
	Well, you have to go over to The View.
	The View, I love this.
	The View, again, these people are like the Pauline Kales of politics.
	So Pauline Kales, a former New Yorker critic who did movie criticism, and she very famously suggested in 1972 that she doesn't know how Richard Nixon could have won.
	She didn't understand how Richard Nixon could have won.
	She literally didn't know anyone who had voted for Nixon.
	They'd all voted for McGovern.
	Nixon, by the way, won 49 states in that election.
	And so that's The View.
	The View is just this little tiny bubble of weird people with low IQs.
	And all they do all day is suggest that they are representative of the American public.
	It's hard to think of people who are less representative of the American public.
	Here are the highly intelligent members of The View.
	Collective IQ could, if translated into electrical impulses from the brain, perhaps toast a piece of bread lightly.
	Here they were yesterday, suggesting that it's time to vote Ron DeSantis down in Florida.
	He just won by 20 points!
	Just to clarify, 0.14% of the University of Florida's budget goes to DEI.
	Program's not 14%, 0.14.
	Okay, so it's even smaller than... That makes your point even more though.
	But the thing is, listen, you can...
	My folks are from Florida.
	They're Floridians.
	And they've been black the whole time.
	They were raised in Florida.
	There's always been black people in Florida.
	And if you're not careful, that base is going to rise up and vote your a** out of there!
	An unprecedented number of black Floridians voted Republican in the last election cycle.
	Same thing with Hispanic Floridians.
	So yeah, we'll take that one with a grain of salt.
	Okay, in just a second, we'll get to one of the things that is actually driving the push to the right.
	And it is the radicalism of the left, particularly on cultural issues, many of the issues that Ron DeSantis is taking on.
	First, if you own a business, it's been a rough few years.
	And from COVID, when the government may have forced you to shut down your business, to Bidenflation, to now the stagnation that's about to happen, If you gave too much money to the government in your taxes, why wouldn't you try to get some of that back?
	This is why you should go talk to the people over at Innovation Refunds.
	If your business has five or more employees and managed to survive COVID, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee.
	We're not talking about a loan.
	There's no payback.
	This is a refund on taxes you probably shouldn't have paid in the first place.
	The question is how to get your hands on that money.
	Well, you head on over to GetRefunds.com.
	Their team of tax attorneys are highly trained in this little-known payroll tax refund program, They've already returned $1 billion to businesses, and they can help you as well.
	They do all the work, no charge upfront.
	Simply share a percentage of the cash they get for you.
	Businesses of all types can qualify, including those who took PPP, nonprofits, even those who had increases in sales.
	Just head on over to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, answer a few quick questions.
	This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time.
	Don't miss out.
	Go to GetRefunds.com.
	Again, GetRefunds.com to get started so you can get some of your money back from the government you shouldn't have given them in the first place.
	GetRefunds.com.
	Also, folks, we have been running a massive 40% off sale for annual memberships.
	It ends tomorrow.
	Don't miss the chance to celebrate one of the greatest moments in daily wire history with one of our best offers ever.
	That is a 40% off annual membership with code DoNotComply.
	So you'll remember that one year ago we sued the federal government over its VAX mandate and we won.
	We are the only major media company to do this.
	And none of the other major media companies that whine about Joe Biden spent $1 attempting to sue the federal government to stop the vax mandate.
	Because we did that, 80 million Americans did not actually have to get vaxed if they did not want to be vaxed.
	Celebrate this victory with us by joining the winning team.
	When you join, you get access to the best content and one of the fastest growing libraries.
	We're adding a lot of new content this year.
	We've got kids content coming.
	We've got movies.
	We've got shows.
	We've got hard-hitting documentaries.
	We've got Jordan Peterson and Matt Walsh and Candace Owens and a lot more coming from me.
	Remember, this is your last chance to get 40% off Your new annual membership at dailywire.com slash subscribe with code DO NOT COMPLY.
	Sale ends tomorrow.
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now.
	Lock in your discount.
	Enjoy all our great releases coming soon.
	Well, folks, maybe one of the reasons why Ron DeSantis is winning all these cultural battles and the left is so angry is because they keep declaring cultural battles that are bound to lose.
	Nick Kristof is finally figuring this out over at the New York Times.
	He has a piece today titled, Inclusive or Alienating?
	The Language Wars Go On.
	And his conclusion is that trying to make people say Latinx or suggest that people are assigned sex at birth, that stuff alienates people.
	He says, I fear our linguistic contortions, however well meant, aren't actually addressing our country's desperate inequities or achieving progressive dreams, but rather are creating fuel for right-wing leaders aiming to take the country in the opposite direction.
	Well, yes, but that's because What you are doing with language is just a reflection of what you are seeking to do with policy and we can all see it.
	You're just providing a gateway.
	It's your fault, but you're providing an actual gateway to us understanding what you are trying to do.
	Very often on the right we suggest that your language obscures reality.
	It does obscure reality, but it clarifies your positions.
	And your positions are idiotic.
	The best example of this today, it really is hilarious.
	There is a graphic that has now been put out by a human named Anna Taylor.
	And it suggests that we have to evolve away from violent language.
	It's gone viral on the Twitters.
	Evolving from violent language.
	It says that you should no longer use language like, we are going to pull the trigger.
	Instead, you should say, we're going to launch.
	You shouldn't say, I'll take a stab at it.
	You should say, I'll take the first pass at it.
	How about, did we jump the gun?
	Nope.
	Did we start too soon?
	You shouldn't say, I'll bite the bullet.
	You should say, I won't avoid it.
	How is bite the bullet even a violent?
	Is that something that you do in violence?
	You bite bullets in violence?
	This one, of course, is the best.
	That'll kill two birds with one stone.
	Instead, you should say, that'll feed two birds with one scone.
	That sounds delicious.
	Instead of saying what's the deadline, you should say what's the due date, which frankly sounds cisgender, heteronormative, and birth positive to me.
	Instead of saying we have to pick our battles, you should say we have to choose our opportunities.
	Instead of can you shoot me an email, you should say can you send me an email.
	Because as we all know, if you ask somebody to shoot you an email, what you actually mean is you want them to shoot you.
	Long pause.
	An email.
	You shouldn't say that was overkill.
	You should say it was a little excessive.
	You shouldn't say you bombed a presentation.
	You say, I didn't do my best.
	This is going to fix everything, guys.
	Genius.
	OK, this sort of nonsense makes me want to disembowel this chart and feed its intestines to the ravens.
	It makes me want to fire it out of a cannon.
	It makes me want to beat it to death with a ball peen hammer and then spread its innards around the fields of Iowa.
	Metaphorically speaking.
	Okay, I mean, if this is the direction that the left wants to move, then more power to them.
	More power to them.
	Because we can all see what you're doing.
	Again, I like the clarification.
	The clarification is good.
	The clarification is nice and the clarification is necessary.
	So frankly, I'm glad they do these things that clarify what it is that they think and feel.
	Speaking of people who are clarifying what the left thinks and feels, you remember Dylan Mulvaney.
	Dylan Mulvaney is one of the heroes of the Republic.
	Dylan Mulvaney is a dude who says that he is a lady.
	So much so that he actually posts on the TikToks videos of himself transitioning into womanhood and become so famous that he is invited to the White House, where he sits in wild, creepy fashion as a quote-unquote girl.
	He doesn't call himself a woman, he calls himself a girl.
	He sits in front of Joe Biden, the President of the United States, who immediately declares that unless you trans the children, you are an immoral person.
	Well, now, finally, in a viral TikTok moment, because TikTok is a Chinese weapon designed to undermine the culture and glue of the Republic, Dylan Mulvaney, who's TikTok famous, Has now made a face reveal.
	What exactly is a face reveal?
	Dillmulvaney went and got a bunch of surgeries.
	So basically this is just showing off the work of the plastic surgeons.
	Now you would imagine that the plastic surgeons, you know, he's paying them money.
	So presumably they do a good job.
	This is no different than a woman who just got a boob job going out and being like, look at these things, they're larger.
	Yeah, I mean, they should be.
	That would be, you know, the idea of the surgery.
	But Dylan Mulvaney did a face reveal because this is how you become truly a woman.
	Womanhood is about how many surgeries you can have to transform your square jaw into a more feminine jaw.
	It really is about shaving down the Adam's apple or whatever it is that surgeons did.
	And then masquerading and playing as a woman.
	Because if you've shown the true commitment of having somebody shave down your jaw, this means you're a woman now.
	Basically, if you're a man who has a mental disorder and shaves down your jaw, this makes you a woman.
	And we can tell because you look more like a woman.
	Which is what we used to call cultural appropriation.
	If you went around wearing makeup that made you look like a person of another race, we used to call that cultural appropriation.
	We used to make fun of you.
	In fact, we still do.
	But if you go around and have surgeries to make you look more like a woman, then you are actually just a woman.
	You're just like the same as a normal biological woman, like an actual woman.
	Here is Dylan Mulvaney gallivanting around pretending to be a girl because he had a surgeon cut him.
	Oh good lord.
	So here is Dylan Mulvaney.
	The face reveal is he is wearing a skirt and a bra and using Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake to dance in ridiculously parodic fashion, staring in close-ups into the camera.
	Dylan Mulvaney's still a dude, but now we're supposed to believe that because he's a dude who's been made to look like a lady, he's actually no longer a dude.
	It's parodic.
	Oh, and there is Dylan Mulvaney as Audrey Hepburn.
	The difference being that Audrey Hepburn was an actual woman with a vagina.
	And also was a woman her entire life.
	And also Dylan Mulvaney is a dude who's pretending to be a... It's all... They're not doing it for attention, guys.
	It's not an attention-grabbing attempt at all.
	Dylan Mulvaney is not a person who wants to be famous or wants attention.
	He just wants to be her true self.
	You know I have a flair for the dramatics.
	But it's so good, right?
	I'm so happy.
	And it's still me.
	It's just a little bit softer of a version.
	Um, it's, it's still you.
	That is correct.
	Hey dude.
	And again, I'm sorry to break it to you, but surgeries do not make you a different person.
	Surgeries are just surgeries to change the outward appearance.
	And the, the pretend that this now makes it, it's, it's, it's such appropriation and it's eh.
	And well, welcome to our wonderful culture.
	Speaking of our wonderful culture.
	It is time to bring back an element of the show that, frankly, we've been missing.
	And I know it was one of the most popular elements of the show.
	In fact, it was one of the most popular elements of the show for a very long time, actually.
	So popular that it became sort of a national meme.
	Cardi B. We did a version of WAP that was significantly better than Cardi B's original version of WAP.
	Well, now, deconstructing the culture is back.
	Let's do this thing.
	Alrighty, so today on Deconstructing the Culture.
	Remember Sam Smith?
	I don't.
	The only thing I remember about Sam Smith is when he was just like a gay dude who was singing a song called Stay With Me.
	Which, what year was Stay With Me?
	I don't actually have the year that Stay With Me came out.
	2014.
	So it has been nearly a decade since Sam Smith was a thing.
	And then, Sam Smith came out as genderqueer, which I don't even know what that means.
	That's not a term that means anything.
	And now, Sam Smith is coming out as gender non-binary.
	As my friend Matt Walsh noted, he's basically like a Russian doll of coming out.
	So he comes out as gay.
	No one cares.
	And then he comes out as genderqueer.
	And everyone's like, I don't know what that is.
	And then he comes out as non-binary.
	And they're like, OK, what's next?
	He's like the Charlie Crist of sexuality.
	Charlie Crist ran out of political parties and Sam Smith is running out of gender.
	The good news is there's an infinite supply.
	So he's just going to do gender after gender after gender.
	And eventually the most transgressive thing he can do is become a straight white man again, presumably.
	Well, he has a new video out and it is titled, I'm not here to make friends.
	Well, I mean, you are in the media because the media will praise you no matter how trans- because you are transgressive.
	And the idea from the left, and particularly in our culture, is the more rules and roles you violate, the more authentic you are.
	And so Sam Smith, having no idea who he is, because he clearly doesn't, he keeps switching his identity every five seconds, he's the most authentic version of himself because he keeps switching his identity every five seconds.
	And because he's transgressing all the rules by dressing up like a laughable fool in this video, which is what he does.
	I mean, he dresses up like a laughable fool And then it's just bizarre.
	It's something out of a Berlin nightclub, circa like 1930.
	It's something straight from Cabaret.
	Except that we're all supposed to now treat this with perfect seriousness and say that Sam Smith, who is a fat dude, like I remember when he was actually a fit gay dude, and now he's just a fat gender non-binary person.
	Which, I mean, I guess that's a pitch.
	I don't know what the pitch is.
	It's weird.
	Okay, anyway.
	So, Sam Smith has an explicit new music video, according to Vogue.
	And it was hyper-sexualized and had sparked age restrictions.
	So, in this video, Sam Smith allegedly sings.
	It is called, I'm Not Here to Make Friends.
	And it is one of the most bizarre and foolish videos I've ever seen.
	I should first explain what Sam Smith says the video is about so we have a full perspective.
	So Sam Smith did an interview in which she explains that this is about self-love.
	Oh, I am sure it is.
	It made me think that I need to step into my fears a little bit, and I need to write some music that shows different sides of me and who I am.
	What was scary about showing joy?
	I think that joy, for me, I think as a queer person, and I think a lot of people can relate to this, but to lean into the joy can feel quite radical sometimes.
	And what was scary was the way that I move my body when I'm joyful, or the way that I dance.
	Doing that in front of thousands of people was always petrifying to me.
	Yes, he seems like a joyful, completely mentally healthy person.
	Okay, so what is this video that we are now exposing the children of America to?
	Well, let's go through this thing.
	I think it is worth noting at this point how many views are on this particular video so that you understand how ubiquitous this is.
	This has, it came out five days ago, 4.8 million views on YouTube.
	Here we go.
	He's wearing nipple tassels, for those who can't see.
	He's a fat man wearing nipple tassels.
	And then you have men who are wearing, um, booty shorts.
	He's wearing nipple tassels for no apparent reason, since he's a dude.
	He has an- they're wearing assless corsets.
	And he is, um, spanking the asses of men dressed as women, it appears.
	Um, it's like, Louis XIV, but essentially this is just, isn't this just the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK?
	Now he is drinking what appears to be pee, swinging from a chandelier, wearing an Elton John or Liberace outfit.
	If this is supposed to be, my favorite out of the seductive shots of Sam Smith, which is like, it is hard to think of something less seductive than this.
	Not to speak for gay men, but if you find this seductive, I think there might be something wrong with you.
	What is... And then you have men in bondage gear who are thrusting their pelvises toward the camera.
	Oh my god.
	Oh, this is... I asked my producers to pull some of this, and now I regret that decision.
	Like, immensely.
	Yes, it's all the things.
	There's a brief, winking insinuation of a golden shell, according to Vogue.
	So, a quasi-pornographic, bizarre, fetishistic acting out of your own gender and sexual confusion.
	It's heroism now.
	It's heroism.
	And that does say something about our culture.
	What it says about our culture is something deeply stupid.
	Which is that, again, personal authenticity is the only thing that matters.
	And this is what you should teach to your kids, right?
	And this thing is restricted on YouTube, so far as I'm aware.
	It's important that the children should know that the best version of you is the version who is obese, walks around as a male with tasseled nipple coverings, and simulates golden showers on camera.
	That is the best version.
	That's how you know you're liberated.
	That's where happiness lies, folks.
	That is where true societal and personal fulfillment lie.
	The future of our civilization rests on precisely that sort of freedom.
	Okay, time for some things I like and some things that I hate.
	Okay, so I'm going to recommend a thing that I like.
	Robert Nisbet was a social scientist and a really great writer.
	And he has a book that speaks to much of what we've been talking about to the last couple of years on the show.
	It's called The Quest for Community.
	It was written in 1952.
	And essentially, he makes the claim that radical individualistic atomization, that the notion of individual autonomy lying at the root of politics and personal fulfillment, is wrong.
	That we act within social context.
	That we as human beings require social context to give us meaning.
	We act within families.
	We act within rules and roles.
	Here are a couple of quotes from The Quest for Community, which is truly worth the read.
	It's not read today the way it was a big bestseller in its time, but of course it's now been 70 years.
	You should go back, you should read it.
	The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet.
	Here are a couple of quotes.
	Quote, genuine freedom is not based upon the negative psychology of release.
	Its roots are in positive acts of dedication to ends and values.
	Freedom presupposes the autonomous existence of values which men wish to be free to follow and measure up to.
	In other words, the sort of nihilistic idea that you find your own cause is not true.
	There has to be an idea of the good in order for you to feel oriented toward the good.
	It's that orientation toward the good that gives you a sense of meaning.
	And you have to do that in the context of wisdom of the ages and communities and institutions that provide you a sense of social solidarity and provide you a sense of place.
	If you feel rootless, if you feel placeless, It makes it extremely difficult to feel fulfilled.
	He says, the historical emphasis upon the individual has been at the expense of the associative and symbolic relationship that must in fact uphold the individual's own sense of integrity.
	As I've said before, if you're alone on a desert island, you're not truly free.
	I mean, in a technical sense, you are.
	There's no one who's making you do anything, but also you're not free because freedom is more than just freedom from.
	It is the ability to orient yourself in connection with the universe and with a higher good and with your fellow man.
	That is what human beings are social creatures.
	Pretending that they are not is a mistake.
	Now there's some people who will say that that mistake began with Locke and that mistake began with sort of in the enlightened liberalism of the of the late 18th century and all of that.
	The truth is that I think that's an overread of Locke because even Locke is reading inside a social context.
	The same time that Locke is writing about individualistic autonomy, he's also writing defenses of Christianity.
	So it's easy to sort of see philosophy as a series of reactions as sort of swinging pendulum, but Whatever you think of Locke, the reality is that the happiness of ordered liberty lies in both the order and the liberty.
	Liberty without order is libertinism.
	Order without liberty is totalitarianism.
	The book, again, is Robert Nisbet's The Quest for Community, and it is totally worth the read.
	Okay, time for a thing that I hate.
	So today, I've seen a TikTok storm of viral videos about women complaining about men looking at them at the gym.
	This apparently is like a thing.
	Women claim to be, it used to be that in order to be victimized in American society, you actually had to be a victim.
	Now you're a victim if you go to the gym dressed in booty shorts and a bra and men give you sideways glances.
	That apparently is like the height of victimhood.
	I'll agree that women are victimized if some guy puts his hands on them when they don't want to have their hands put on them.
	Obviously.
	I'll agree that women are victimized if men, without regard for the woman, just stare at them.
	Like, just stare for prolonged periods of time.
	But that's not what we're talking about here.
	What we are talking about is attractive women on TikTok who are seeking attention, which is why they are on TikTok, filling themselves at the gym, wearing extraordinarily tight clothing and bare midriff, and then they are surprised that men are looking at them occasionally.
	Now, let's be real about this.
	This is how many dates in the United States and everywhere else have started.
	A man sees an attractive woman and he walks up to her and he asks her out.
	This is how most of human civilization was propagated, as it turns out.
	The entire future of civilization rests on men and women getting together and making babies.
	You know how that usually is initiated?
	The same way it is throughout virtually all species.
	A male finds a female sexually attractive and then he walks up to her and then he says something.
	And the notion that the physical has nothing to do with anything, that we are a series of souls that kind of meet each other randomly in the it's just silly.
	But here are some of these videos.
	By the way, the men in these videos are being now castigated as being gross and terrible.
	What is the we'll go through this video.
	I want to watch it with you and we're going to decide together whether the guy in the background who this woman is now targeting, she says this is not how to approach girls at the gym.
	We'll see whether he does something truly egregious and wrong.
	This is how to not approach girls at the gym.
	Stupid bleeping behind me.
	I hate when there's weirdos.
	Gets me so uncomfortable.
	Feral?
	Feral, feral, feral, like f*** feral.
	Feral?
	There's mirrors everywhere so it's like you can even catch people.
	Act.
	Oh, this is nothing.
	Okay, we're gonna move on to the 35s now.
	I want you to watch very carefully.
	Stare counter.
	Why is he staring so long?
	That is less than a second and a half.
	That one is not even a stare.
	That is a glance.
	This is what women mean by staring at her like a piece of meat.
	Why is he walking over?
	Oh, no.
	He's walking over to offer to help her with her weight, and she says no, and he walks away.
	Oh, the victimization.
	Oh, the terribleness.
	OK, so a couple of things.
	Yeah, I work out every single day.
	I'm just wondering why.
	It's not the only video like this, by the way.
	Like, here's another video like this.
	We'll go through another video like this.
	This is another woman.
	She takes off her shirt at the gym and a guy looks at her.
	So let me just point this out to you.
	If a woman takes off her shirt anywhere in public, men will look at her.
	I'm sorry to break to you basic lizard brain biology.
	It's going to happen.
	I'll get into the actual scientific biology of this in just one second because it's very real.
	But here's another one of these videos.
	Again, men are bad because they look at women taking off their shirts.
	By the way, if you say that pornography is bad, you're also approved.
	Anyway, here we go.
	I stand up for myself.
	He threatens to call the police and revoke my membership.
	So here she is taking off her shirt.
	And a guy looks at her.
	Oh, no.
	In the mirror, there's a guy who's looking as a woman takes off her shirt.
	Unprecedented.
	And he says, oh, damn, because a woman is taking off her shirt.
	And then she just stands there still taking off her shirt.
	She's gonna yell at him, do you need something?
	Nope.
	Okay, I thought so.
	Are you a fan?
	If you're getting rude, you can leave.
	Nobody is looking at you in any type of way.
	I don't own the gym, I work here.
	And if you're getting rude, then you can leave.
	I can call the police and have you trespassed right now.
	Would you like that?
	Go ahead.
	Okay, cool.
	Go ahead, let him know.
	And by the way, normally we would call this lady, based on the race of the people involved, a Karen, would we not?
	Right?
	She's a young lady who does not seem to be of color, who is harassing a black man, who didn't do anything particularly wrong.
	Other things that we should point out here.
	When women spray paint their asses and then wear bras and bare their midriffs in public, men are going to look at them.
	Again, hate to break this to you, that is the reality.
	As I say, I work out at the gym every single day.
	And there are women who come in, And do not wear this sort of stuff.
	And guess what?
	They don't get stared at as much.
	I don't know how the patriarchy convinced women that the most efficient form of workout material was to essentially wear things that hug the body as closely as humanly possible and bear as much skin as possible.
	But the patriarchy has magic powers, apparently.
	It is not sexist to point out that men are going to look at scantily clad women in a different way.
	Listen, I made this case to my friend Allie Beth Stuckey, who's like, yeah, yoga pants are fine.
	Yeah, women can wear yoga pants.
	But don't be surprised when men stare at you because it hugs your ass.
	That's just the reality.
	And when I say stare, it doesn't mean the men should gawk at you.
	But if a man takes an occasional glance at the fact that you have a spray-painted ass, that is not a shock.
	That is not sexism.
	That is basic human biology.
	My favorite part of American society is now the idea that men have to walk around like Sandra Bullock in Bird Box.
	They're gonna walk around with like a blindfold on all day long, and oh my god, he glanced over at me despite me dressing like this.
	Yes!
	We all understand this, but then we have to pretend not to understand this so as not to be perceived as quote-unquote sexist.
	He's not sexist, as it turns out actually.
	You know what?
	I'm gonna do the science right now.
	You wanna know why this is not sexist?
	Quote.
	This is from Scientific American.
	Our brains see men as whole and women as parts.
	Evolution might underlie the different processing of female versus male bodies.
	Both genders do it!
	A glimpse at the magazine rack in any supermarket checkout line will tell you that women are frequently the focus of sexual objectification.
	Now, new research finds the brain actually processes images of women differently than those of men, contributing to that trend.
	Women are more likely to be picked apart by the human brain and seen as parts rather than as wholes.
	That is correct, according to research published online June 29th in the European Journal of Social Psychology.
	Men, on the other hand, are processed as a whole rather than the sum of their parts.
	Again, none of this is particularly shocking, considering that by evolutionary biological standards, men are going to be adjudicated based on their strength and their success rate for reproductive possibility, and women are generally predicted for reproductive possibility.
	I'm talking about in the animal kingdom, not even among human beings.
	For youth, fertility, beauty, right?
	These are all biologically based.
	The study author, Sarah Gervais, a psychologist at University of Nebraska, said, everyday ordinary women are being reduced to their sexual body parts.
	But, she says, it's also that, like, that's just what people do.
	The researchers focused on two types of mental processing, global and local.
	Global processing is how the brain identifies objects as a whole.
	It tends to be used when recognizing people, where it's not just important to know the shape of the nose, for example, but also how the nose sits in relation to the eyes and the mouth.
	Local processing focuses more on the individual parts of an object.
	You might recognize a house by its door alone, for instance.
	You're less likely to recognize a person's arm without the benefit of seeing the rest of her body.
	If women are sexually objectified, people should process their bodies in a more local way, focusing on individual body parts like breasts.
	To test that idea, Gervais and her colleagues carried out two nearly identical experiments with a total of 227 undergraduate participants.
	Each person was shown non-sexualized photographs, each of either a young man or a young woman, 48 in total.
	After seeing each original full-body image, the participants saw two side-by-side photographs.
	One was the original image, the other was the original with a slight alteration to the chest or waist, because these are sexualized body parts.
	Participants had to pick which image they'd seen before.
	In some cases, the second set of photos zoomed in on the chest or waist only, asking participants to pick the body part they'd previously seen versus the one that had been altered.
	The results showed a clear schism between the images of men and women.
	When viewing female images, participants were better at recognizing individual parts than they were matching whole body photographs to the originals.
	The opposite was true for males.
	People were better at recognizing a dude as a whole than they were his individual parts.
	And it's both men and women doing this to women, so don't blame the men here, says Gervais.
	Why?
	Largely because, again, this is how men look at women.
	This does not mean that this is how men end up looking at women in a relationship.
	This is why relationships are supposed to be predicated not on sexual attractiveness, that is the original attraction.
	They are then supposed to be predicated on seeing the person as a whole.
	That is what happens over the course of, say, a marriage.
	This is why commitment matters in relationships.
	Because ladies, bit of personal advice, men at the beginning are going to see you more as a collection of beauty and body parts than they are as a soul.
	And the more they get to know you, and the more you hold off on the physical components of the relationship, the more they're going to have to get to know the whole you, and maybe commit to the whole you.
	When women complain that they're being treated as pieces of meat by men while going on one-night stands, the answer is, that's terrible that men are doing that to you.
	Also, of course that's true.
	Of course that's true.
	The longer you are with a person, the more of their soul you see, the more of the whole them you see.
	Women tend to be better at this with regard to men.
	But as it turns out, women actually do this with women also.
	Why?
	Because women compare themselves to other women.
	This creepy old guy at the gym kept coming over and staring at me.
	for other women, for example.
	Women don't dress for men.
	They dress to impress other women.
	Anyway, we'll go back to this video where apparently it's very creepy if a person glances at you when you wear spray-painted ass clothes.
	This creepy old guy at the gym kept coming over and staring at me.
	So I told my husband, and he came over and worked out next to me.
	Even after he came over, he continued to stare.
	I decided to stop working out and stare back.
	I attempted to do my set.
	Then I got set up and went over and addressed him.
	Okay, here she goes.
	She's gonna go over and address this guy.
	Again, you saw in this video him for a grand total of like Three seconds, maybe?
	Okay, so, again, you're filming yourself at the gym to do this.
	workout in this corner he needed to stop staring and making me uncomfortable.
	Okay, one, you could theoretically have separate gyms.
	There are a lot of women in the Orthodox Jewish community who prefer to work out at separate gyms specifically to avoid this, right?
	They work out at female-only gyms and males work out at male-only gyms.
	Another way to avoid this is, presumably, that you work out with a group of women.
	You could do that.
	There are many things that can be done if this really bothers you.
	There are things that you can do to alleviate this problem.
	But pretending that men are not going to glance at you or that that can be alleviated by societally beating it out of them or by shaming them on TikTok is ridiculous.
	It's always going to be ridiculous.
	And that's not the same.
	Pretending that a stare is the same thing as a glance is silly.
	It is not the same thing as a glance.
	Pretending that men are not going to glance at women is silly.
	Pretending that men glancing at women is inherently a bad thing is silly.
	Again, that's how I would say virtually all dates get started this way.
	But because it's become a TikTok viral trend, we have to comment on it because again, the idea from our culture is that human nature does not exist.
	And so all things I don't like are societal creations of quote-unquote, the patriarchy.
	And therefore, if a guy stares at me while I'm dressed in spandex, then it must be because the patriarchy indoctrinated him to do so.
	One quick note, I've been made aware by some producers that some of these TikTok videos, not all of them, some of the TikTok videos of this ilk have been created by women who also have OnlyFans accounts.
	So in other words, they're totally fine with men staring at them so long as they get paid for it.
	They just don't like it when men glance at them at the gym dressing the exact same stuff that they're wearing on their OnlyFans accounts for free.
	They're not clout chasing, in other words.
	This is all genuine, guys.
	Staring grossly at women is bad.
	Glancing at them is sort of just a human instinct and people are going to have to get over it.
	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 mailbag.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

▲