The Megyn Kelly Show - 20211208_faucis-covid-responsibility-and-gun-vs-criminal-cu

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

Dec. 8, 2021 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:40:24

20211208_faucis-covid-responsibility-and-gun-vs-criminal-cu

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Fauci's Gain of Function Claims 00:14:33
	Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megyn Kelly Show.
	We have a great show lined up for you today.
	Dana Lash is here.
	Really looking forward to talking with her.
	About Alec Baldwin, about race based teachings in school, and about this case with this school shooter with his parents now arrested based on what they did with respect to their son and his gun.
	You know, Dana is an expert when it comes to guns and ammunition and so on.
	So we'll talk to her about all of that.
	And she's got a new children's book coming out.
	So we'll get there as well.
	But we're going to begin today with new reporting on the pandemic.
	President Biden dealt yet another blow in his efforts to force federal employees to get the jab.
	And we're learning more about Omicron.
	Few people know more about the country's COVID response, about China, about the virus's origins, and so on, not to mention the impact all of this has on our economy.
	Then, my next guest, Peter Navarro, is an American economist who served as President Trump's Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy.
	He has a new book and a new podcast out called In Trump Time.
	A congressional committee right now is demanding that he hand over all documents and communications related to the pandemic.
	By today, we'll ask whether he's going to do that.
	Peter, thank you so much for being here.
	And so great to be with you.
	The pleasure is mine.
	So let me just start with that last piece now.
	So there are many congressional committees investigating many things from the Trump years.
	And one of them is the COVID response.
	So they want all sorts of documents from you, your notes, and all that for when you were with the administration.
	President Trump has said don't hand it over, and it is his privilege.
	So what do you do?
	I'll make a statement on that on December 14th, which is the day.
	Before the committee meets and expecting me there.
	So let's wait till then.
	In the meantime, executive privilege is sacrosanct and I will respect that privilege.
	Okay.
	Now, if I'm not mistaken, the background you have behind you in this shot, right, it's the screen.
	Is that the Wuhan lab?
	Yeah, that's a quiz for your audience like who gets it right?
	And so the host got it right.
	Good for you.
	And let me walk you through this.
	And this is all in the end Trump time book.
	Look, this is something people really need to understand.
	The Wuhan Institute of Virology, first of all, it's also what's called a P4 bioweapons lab run by the People's Liberation Army.
	This is where dangerous bioweapons are created.
	Now, what's interesting about this in the end Trump time book, in the second chapter, I meet this guy in the situation room, the president.
	Has sent me there to argue on behalf of the travel ban.
	It's January 28, 2020, very early in the pandemic.
	There's no pandemic yet, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci.
	And I'm in there with a group, and I immediately get into an argument with this little guy with round glasses on who's adamantly opposed to the travel ban.
	He's saying travel bans don't work.
	And it turns out, of course, to be Fauci.
	And during the argument, I'm thinking to myself, you know, this guy.
	Thinks he's smarter than he is and he's going to do us harm.
	Megan, that was my initial instinct.
	But here's what's interesting what Fauci knew at the time, and this is the biggest lie of omission.
	In world history, this is Wuhan, China.
	Fauci knew that the virus itself had come within yards of this, so it likely came from this lab.
	But what Fauci didn't tell the president and me was that he had funded the so called gain of function experiments at the Wuhan lab, which can be used to turn a harmless bat virus into a human killer.
	More importantly, he had gotten an email from a script scientist who said flat out this thing was likely.
	Genetically engineered.
	So here we have a situation, Megan, where we have a pandemic that's killed over 700,000 Americans, millions worldwide, cost us trillions in the economy.
	And yet, the guy, Fauci, who is likely responsible for the pandemic with the Chinese Communist Party, not only roams free and out of jail, but is the highest ranking health official, the highest paid government employee.
	And continues to tell us that five year olds need to be jabbed by what is right now not really a vaccine.
	It's a faux vaccine that basically is designed to provoke an immune response.
	It's not like smallpox or polio vaccine.
	So, well, I mean, the vaccine will help minimize your chances of hospitalization or death.
	The thing about the absurdity of the children is they are facing.
	Virtually no risk of hospitalization or death, anyway.
	And so it's like, well, why should we jab them?
	Well, so that they don't transmit it to others.
	Well, the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission.
	So it's like, so wait, why am I jabbing him again?
	Walk me through it.
	I'm totally open minded to it, but so far the arguments aren't that persuasive.
	But let me stop.
	Let me go back to something you said, which was that he basically caused the pandemic.
	That's the link that they haven't been able to establish yet.
	I'm with you on the NIH, his group within the NIH funding gain of function research.
	I agree with you.
	They paid Peter Dazic's group hundreds of thousands.
	Peter Dazic worked with that lab to do what is clearly gain of function research.
	The NIH wound up having to admit that, though Fauci still tries to dodge it based on some weird wording of what technically is gain of function.
	Meanwhile, NIH already gave it up.
	But they haven't been able to say that what Peter Dazic's group was doing in that lab that is behind you was the thing that led to this virus.
	It was like related, it was back coronaviruses, but it wasn't.
	There's no proof, and I haven't even seen the document suggesting what they created, what we helped fund, was the creation of this virus.
	Yeah, there's a couple of things to say about it.
	First of all, you don't need to have to make that case to hold Fauci responsible.
	The analogy here is that what China has done and what President Trump cracked down on when he was in office was all the kinds of technology transfer that China would affect to their country from the United States, whether it was stealing the technology outright.
	Or forcing the transfer of the technology.
	At a minimum, Megan, here's what we know that the scientists in this lab who were able to create the virus that either escaped or was intentionally released probably escaped.
	The technology they used was the technology that was transferred through the grants that Fauci gave to the Chinese, through Dasik, through Barrick, to the Bat Lady.
	At a minimum, even if Fauci didn't directly create the virus, he gave them the technology and the expertise to do that.
	Now, the other thing to say, having said that, is I believe that the experimentation that Barrick Dasik and the Bat Lady did led directly to this.
	And the problem we have, Megan, and again, this is at the feet of both Fauci and the Chinese Communist Party, is we don't have the original genome of the virus.
	See, here's the thing if Fauci had come to the president and said, look, I think we've got a big problem here, we funded this lab, they did some gain of function experiments.
	This thing looks genetically engineered.
	We got to get to the bottom of it.
	If he had simply said that in January 2020, I know what would have happened.
	And I probably would have been the tip of the spear on this.
	We would have gone to communist China and demanded the original genome of the virus.
	Megan, we still don't have that.
	Why is that important?
	It would have allowed us to design a much more sophisticated and complex true vaccine.
	Let's go back to the vaccine for a minute.
	Here's the thing it's not really a vaccine.
	In the Intrump Tide book, I describe a series of a dozen memos I wrote in February of 2020 that helped jumpstart Operation Warp Speed.
	But I was really clear eyed at the time because I had a really good medical advisor, Dr. Stephen Hatfield, and we knew right off the bat that the vaccine was not a true vaccine.
	It was based on these experimental RNA technologies, right?
	And so, what it is, it's a primitive tool, basically, that takes six of these spikes.
	Proteins inject it into people and provokes what we now know is a relatively brief immune response that's not complete in terms of protection.
	Okay.
	Look, I'm the first one to say if you're a senior citizen and you've got comorbidities, get the damn thing.
	Okay.
	But I'm also the first to say that what's really more important is therapeutics, and that if you're a healthy person or a kid that's not immune compromised, You don't want that.
	The point here is that if we had the original genome, if Fauci had told us what he had done here in January 2020, and we got that original genome, we could have more precisely designed a true vaccine and the genie wouldn't have got out of the bottle.
	So, Tony Fauci.
	Let me ask you this, Peter.
	So, let me ask you this, though, about the genome, because it does seem to me we've sort of moved on.
	You know, China disappeared a couple of people who were reporting on this and who were saying what had really happened.
	More than a couple of people.
	And then we just moved on.
	You know, like right now, we've announced this week that we're going to do a diplomatic boycott of the Olympics because of their human rights abuses.
	It doesn't seem directly related to COVID.
	And there's been absolutely no accountability.
	And we're still dealing with this virus.
	So, I mean, I do wonder this genuinely.
	If President Trump were still in office and you were advising him, what would you be telling him to try to force them to fork over what they know with the original genome?
	Megan, the one that got away from me, my specialty when I got to the White House.
	In 2017.
	Yeah, I had no experience in this thing, but I quickly learned that the thing that you do at the White House is do executive orders.
	That's kind of the way to achieve progress in policy because it just takes too long to work through the Congress.
	And in the end Trump time book, there's a story about how I drafted an executive order that would have created a national commission, like the Kennedy Commission on the Assassination, the BP oil spill, Pearl Harbor.
	To this day, I think that we need to proceed with all due speed to that.
	What it would have done, and it was clever in the following sense it not only would have required getting to the origins of the virus.
	And the costs, which I calculate to be upwards of a year's worth of GDP right now, like $20 trillion.
	It would also have examined how the virus has actually helped China improve its position relative to the United States economically, geopolitically, and militarily.
	So, to your point here, my long answer is really a short answer.
	It's we need to get to the bottom of this.
	The best way to do it is through a national commission to put the heat on the Chinese.
	And you're absolutely right when you say we've moved on, but don't include me in that.
	Don't include a lot of people in America who, if you do a poll, still want to hold China accountable and get to the bottom of it.
	I see, you know, they take one of the key missions of the In Trump Time book is to put Fauci in jail, but it's also to get to the bottom of what happened in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	Because, look, I think.
	Yesterday was Pearl Harbor Day, December 7th.
	And as I write in the book, it's like our third Pearl Harbor moment, Megan, was January 15th, 2020, when I'm sitting in the East Wing in the audience watching the boss on stage with the Chinese vice premier signing this so called skinny trade deal.
	And I'm thinking to myself in a cold sweat that a virus was on its way, that these people sitting on stage probably knew that.
	And wondering whether this was an attack to take Hong Kong and get Trump out of the White House.
	It pretty much looks like that today.
	Wow.
	That's, I mean, now that's deep because, right, Trump was rolling along towards reelection.
	The economy was booming.
	And this stopped it.
	Obviously, there was no bigger factor than COVID and Trump's defeat.
	And of course, then you saw the Democrats and the media seize on it and blow this up into 24 7 nonstop coverage without any nuance, without any.
	You know, pause to take a look at whether they were making too big a deal out of it, whether we were overstepping in terms of our response and so on.
	But let me rewind to jail for Fauci, because that's a big thing, right?
	Now, based on what?
	I know Rand Paul and some others are saying he lied to Congress, but what specifically?
	Because, you know, given that he's denying the gain of function research and is trying to sort of weasel out of it based on a definition, is that what you're talking about?
	Well, why does he belong in jail?
	Well, for two reasons.
	First of all, he did lie to Congress.
	He can weasel all he wants.
	He's a sociopath.
	He's a narcissist.
	That's what he does.
	I mean, if you just look at when he gets caught in a lie, he just makes up a new one.
Pfizer Data Manipulation Allegations 00:16:03
	It's like, let's just, okay, the virus came from nature.
	Remember, Megan, I buried the lead in some sense because the lie of omission, he not only lied by omission, then he went and did this elaborate cover up with Peter Dasik to lead the world to believe that this thing came from nature.
	From a bat cape.
	That zoonotic theory, as they call it, that's been debunked now.
	So he leads the cover up.
	So the first lie is come from nature, not the lab.
	He knew damn well it came from the lab.
	Oh, it came from the lab, but it wasn't us, right?
	It wasn't those, whatever we were doing at the lab.
	We'd never supported gain of function.
	Well, we supported something that looked like gain of function.
	I mean, it goes on and on and on.
	A lot of wiggling.
	I think the only reason why Biden.
	Keeps him there is because he's like the trophy that helped Biden defeat Trump, right?
	And if you take Fauci out, you kind of undermine the whole credibility of their campaign.
	But the other reason why he belongs in jail or at least should be the object of a massive.
	Class action suit is precisely because he helped create the virus and then hid it from the world.
	I mean, he.
	Not the virus necessarily, but AIDS, a virus similar.
	Yeah.
	And by the way, yeah, good point.
	Excellent point.
	By the way, in the Trump Time book, and this kind of shocked me when I was doing the research, but Fauci is responsible, if you believe Sean Strub and body count, for killing 17,000 people.
	During the worst of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s, for withholding a medicine that he knew the AIDS community knew worked.
	And fast forward to chapter seven and in Trump time, it's the same thing with hydroxychloroquine.
	Megan, I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt today, based on all the science we know, that hydroxychloroquine was one of the safest drugs on the planet and would have saved over 300,000 American lives if we had deployed it.
	And today, If we were to deploy it, it would save hundreds of thousands of American lives.
	Let me say something to you on hydroxychloroquine.
	So I was open minded to that.
	And actually, I've told the story before.
	I had to have an oral surgery during the height of the pandemic.
	And my dentist, my oral surgeon who operated on me, said that he and everyone he knew was on it.
	All of his doctor friends were on hydroxychloroquine.
	This is back during the height of the pandemic.
	So I said, okay, you know, he's like, you're not allowed to say it.
	You're not allowed to even talk about it, but we're all on it.
	So then I went to my doctor.
	Who's my primary care physician?
	He's an infectious disease specialist.
	And he said, Here's the truth on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
	He said, Studies are underway on both.
	He said, So far, the actual peer reviewed studies and the meta studies that look at all the studies on hydroxychloroquine have not proven that it's effective.
	And yet, ivermectin looks more promising.
	So he's not like some knee jerk, like, No, none of this stuff.
	This is crazy quack medicine.
	What he told me, this is a guy I trust, is possibly on ivermectin.
	So far, we haven't seen the proof on hydroxy.
	Well, we haven't seen it.
	We have seen it now, unequivocally.
	There's plenty of evidence.
	I hate to keep mentioning the Intrump Time book, but it's all the chapter seven in the Intrump Time book.
	It's an homage to Perry Mason.
	It's the scurrilous case of hydroxy hysteria.
	I basically lay out all of the studies that have been done.
	There's no question that if you take hydroxychloroquine in the first seven days, on average, you will see.
	A moderation of symptoms, a reduction in any hospital time should you go there, less need for a ventilator and death off the table.
	It's unequivocal.
	And there are some risks, though, associated with it, too.
	I mean, there have been some risks with hydroxychloroquine that have been documented, depending on your medical history.
	You and I are not going to give medical advice, right?
	It's like, do it through your personal physician.
	Putting the asterisks up.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	The one, look, it is regarded to be one of the safest drugs in the world.
	CDC actually prescribes it for pregnant women going in.
	To malaria zones.
	And here's what's interesting, Megan.
	The amount of hydroxychloroquine you would take to treat the COVID over a seven day period is the same amount on a daily basis that lupus and rheumatoid arthritis patients take for the rest of their lives.
	Okay.
	So the people who are the only people who appear to be at risk from it are those with heart arrhythmias.
	And that's it.
	Yeah, right.
	Exactly.
	It's a heart disease.
	That's why it's important to go to your You'll go to your physician.
	But I think it's important when you talk to your doctor, whoever was talking to you, it's like what happened was early on they conflated the studies that looked at late treatment with early treatment.
	If you take hydroxychloroquine after seven days to try to help with COVID, it's like taking aspirin for a gunshot wound.
	The virus has proliferated too much.
	But if you catch it early, you have a strong antiviral effect.
	So there it is.
	Read chapter seven in Trump time.
	I would say to your audience, let them decide.
	But I can tell you unequivocally that we need widespread therapeutics if we're going to ever get.
	Well, they're coming.
	I mean, they're coming, right?
	We're getting one from Merck.
	Supposedly, you know, these pills are going to be very, very helpful.
	Hold on.
	Let me stand you by there because I have to squeeze in a quick break, but I really want to talk to you about boosters too, because today Pfizer's out.
	It's getting hit in the news for saying, get your booster, get your booster to fight Omicron.
	Meanwhile, it's not at all clear that it's going to stop Omicron.
	We're going to pick it up there right after this quick break.
	More with Peter Navarro coming up on all of this, including how COVID has affected the economy, two of his specialties when we come back.
	Peter Navarro is back with us now, author of the new book, In Trump Time.
	Okay, Peter, so today Pfizer comes out and says what you need to do is get a booster, saying two doses of the COVID 19 vaccine were significantly less effective at neutralizing the Omicron variant in early lab tests, but a three dose regimen was more effective.
	This at the same time, we learn that.
	Omicron really is not that scary a variant.
	Even Fauci has said that the variant appears to cause less severe illness, cautioning that data is still preliminary.
	But so we have a variant that's actually really not that dangerous.
	So far as of late yesterday, there wasn't a single death attributed to Omicron in the world.
	And yet Pfizer, and even Fauci has said earlier, this is the excuse to get your booster.
	This is the reason to get your booster right now.
	What do you make of it?
	Well, Pfizer is not an American company, even though it's Based here.
	I go at Lankin in Trump Time book about how it acts like the Vatican, has its own foreign policy.
	It's one of the most scurrilous companies in the world, led by the most scurrilous CEO in the world, this guy Albert Borla.
	I have a story about how Borla and Pfizer basically manipulated the data on the COVID.
	In order to postpone the vaccine until after the election, so Trump could not get a win.
	What they did make and it was right after, right?
	Wasn't it like a day after the election that they announced they had the vaccine?
	Yeah, well, yeah, what they did is it's like for in order to go through these clinical trials, and in order to say you got a vaccine that's over 90% effective, which Pfizer was able to do, they have to have a certain amount of what's called confirmed cases.
	These are the people who took the vaccine, uh, but still got the virus, and so in order so so.
	So that they could delay that announcement and screw Trump, they took these test swabs and stored them rather than actually looked at the results.
	And that allowed them to postpone it.
	And Borla, and this guy is like the shadiest guy I've ever seen.
	And there's a story about how these big pharma executives would come in to the White House.
	I'd sit down and meet him because one of my things, Megan, was bringing home our supply chains for essential medicines.
	This is like critical.
	It's like, We are totally dependent on the Chinese and the Indians for much of what's in our medicine cabinet.
	And that's okay unless you got a pandemic.
	Okay.
	So these guys would come in in their Gucci shoes and they'd look down their nose at me like I was like some nativist.
	And say, no, no, no, we can't bring our supply chains home.
	Cost too much, can't be done.
	And I'm saying, no, no, no, there's just too much risk.
	So that's Pfizer.
	And Big Pharma spent a tremendous amount of money on behalf of Biden and against Trump.
	My point here is that these Pfizer, they're all about the money, right?
	And if I had, if we were in the White House for a second term, one of the things that I'd be demanding.
	Is that Pfizer and these drug companies not make a single dime?
	It's just cost based.
	I'm using the Defense Production Act.
	You make that stuff, okay?
	You make that stuff, but you're not making a dime.
	You'll recover your costs, but you don't make a dime.
	And you do that for the good of the country.
	So that's kind of where we're at.
	Now, with respect to these booster shots, Megan, the scientists, this is clear.
	And I go back again to the story I told you before the break.
	I'm the guy, it's in the Trump time book, sitting in the White House, February 9th.
	I write a memo that says we can get a vaccine by October or November, right?
	It's like Fauci's head exploded because he said, no, it's going to take more than two years.
	We actually hit that mark.
	But in those memos, I say very clearly look, this is RNA experimental technology.
	It's likely to be leaky and non durable.
	There's no silver bullet.
	And we're in a situation now where this genie is so far out of the bottle that we're looking at, Boosters and annual shots far into the future, um, and just learning to live with it.
	And the problem is that the technology, these faux vaccines, just don't have the firepower to deal with the number of mutations.
	And the biggest problem we have, and Doc Malone, who invented the RNA technology, and I have written several articles about this in the Washington Times.
	What you it's basic virology 101, Megan, is if if you have.
	Uh, people getting the vaccine and the virus encounters them, they will develop mutations that are resistant to the vaccine.
	And if you vaccinate everybody with a universal vax, you run the very real risk of creating a mutation that hits the vaccine.
	And so, that's like, what you're saying.
	Now, you sound like you're bashing the concept of vaccines, which were developed during the Trump presidency.
	You're not bashing the concept of a vaccine.
	I know.
	No, no, let's be clear.
	I'm not.
	See, that's the thing.
	I'm the last person anybody can accuse of being anti vaxx because I helped create this thing.
	Yeah.
	But this is not polio and smallpox.
	Okay.
	No, it's not like you take it and you're not going to get it.
	That takes away those diseases forever.
	Okay.
	What we have here is a leaky and non durable vaccine.
	The durability is the issue where you keep getting boosters.
	The leaky is that you can still get the disease if you get vaccinated, right?
	And so the prudent strategy here, Megan, this is a really serious thing, is to only vaccinate the people who are at risk most from the disease.
	That is the elderly, that's people with comorbidities.
	And then everybody else you treat who have a very, very low risk of death, you treat with therapeutics.
	And that's the way you build up.
	Or not at all, right?
	I mean, like most people don't need any treatment from COVID, it's very mild for millions of people.
	Yes, exactly right.
	You know, me, it's the first sign of COVID, I'm taking hydroxy, right?
	And if I need some other stuff, yeah, certainly boosting up my zinc, my vitamin D, stuff like that.
	The point here, Megan, is that.
	We're in a, this is like, again, I get back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
	We still don't know what the Chinese attacked us with.
	We still don't know what.
	No, I agree with all that.
	But my concern, like, I am pro vax.
	I'm anti mandate, which in the Democrats book makes me an anti vaxxer.
	You have to be pro mandate to be a pro vaxxer, I guess, but I don't care.
	But I do see the reports that, you know, people are dying, obviously, and that more Republicans are dying, more Trump supporters, more Republicans, more conservatives are dying.
	Than people who consider themselves on the left.
	And it's not that that makes the death any more concerning or less concerning for me.
	My point is simply it's important that those people understand that the vaccine is effective at preventing death or hospitalization if you're somebody who's at risk for those things.
	So we can't crap all over it entirely.
	It has provided.
	I'm not doing that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I just want to make sure we're clear because I don't want people who need it.
	If here's the thing, there's the hockey stick, okay.
	This is the scariest thing in COVID, right?
	If you look at a graph, right, by age and death rates, mortality rates, right, and you go from like one year old, right, to about 60, it's about a flat line, okay?
	Yes.
	Once you hit over 60, it's a hockey stick, it goes straight up.
	And by the time you're 80 years old, right, and you get COVID, you know, you got like a 60 or 70% chance.
	Of death, I mean, you'd be nuts not to take the vaccine.
	So, and if you have comorbidities too, your risk is higher.
	Well, heavy diabetes, you know, yeah, healthy, healthy, healthy.
	But if you've got like lung disease, heart disease, diabetes, um, you're morbidly obese, I mean, again, we're absolutely on the same page here, um, Megan, with respect to how this should be deployed.
	Okay, people who are at risk should take it, but I'm telling you, it's like.
	Like jabbing our five year olds, jabbing professional athletes.
	There's a study, there's studies out now from Hong Kong that says there's a one in 2,700 chance that boy children will get myocarditis.
	Okay, that's a very known side effect.
	And now we have some data on that.
	So, wasn't there a Pfizer study recently confirming the risks of myocarditis from the vaccine and now it's being suppressed?
	Like reporting on the real side effects from the vaccines, even from the vax manufacturers.
	Is being stifled because Twitter and the other social media giants are so determined not to have you understand any of the risks, however large or small they may be.
	That's what's so frustrating.
Vaccine Interference with Antibodies 00:02:11
	And we haven't even gotten to natural immunity.
	I mean, so I can have my kids are 8, 10, and 12.
	If my 10 year old gets COVID, I still, so now let's say she gets COVID.
	She hasn't had COVID, but let's say she gets COVID.
	Then I still have to vaccinate her post.
	So there's no question a child who gets COVID has natural immunity thereafter.
	They already started at an incredibly low risk of.
	Transmitting it anyway.
	And now I've got to mandatorily vaccinate her too, which it's after they've had COVID and they get a vaccine that potential risks go up.
	It is insane.
	And there's no way of really fighting if you live in a blue state because everyone in control thinks you're a nutcase if you say anything negative about the vaccine or masks.
	And this is where I get back to Fauci's original sin, the lie of omission.
	It's like if you have the virus and you survive.
	You've got a very textured, broad based type of immunity, including T cell immunity, which is, according to Israeli studies, at least 20 times stronger than the vaccine itself.
	Now, If you vaccinate people who have those natural antibodies, there is some evidence that suggests that that interferes with those antibodies.
	So, there's two reasons why you don't want to vaccinate the people who have antibodies.
	One is they have antibodies that are stronger, and two, you could actually weaken those antibodies.
	So, that's just an absolutely crazy thing to do.
	But by the way, I mean, you have your middle child's female, the boys risk myocarditis.
	The females risk the problems with the reproductive cycle.
	I mean, we're running some really.
	I looked at that.
	Trust me.
	I took a hard look at that.
	I could not find evidence that proved it thus far.
	I had a long podcast with Brett Weinstein, who'd been raising concerns, and he had on two experts where they did a deep dive on that.
	I took a look at it and did not see evidence that was real that created fertility concerns.
	Let me promote Doc Malone, have him on, and you might get that.
Economic Growth Drivers and Inflation 00:08:54
	But I think.
	I think the point here, going back to this suppression of data, this is the Fauci doctrine of the good lie.
	Remember when we were confronted with a shortage of N95 masks?
	Fauci went on TV and said that masks don't work so that there wouldn't be a run on the masks.
	That's typical Fauci behavior, the good lie.
	It's like, okay, don't tell people that this vaccine can harm you.
	Because that'll prevent universal Vax.
	Oh, they're taking the negative reports.
	Like if they do a case study or a testing group and somebody has catastrophic results, we had a guy on the show, they remove your data from the testing circle and it doesn't wind up in some cases in the final reporting.
	I mean, that's just dishonest.
	Let me shift gears with you, though, Peter, because I know you are an economist.
	You're truly an expert when it comes to this stuff.
	And I look around now at the economy and it seems to me that Joe Biden should have been.
	You know, like a racehorse running around the track, an easy glide to victory when he took office, right?
	Because we had the vaccine, the economy had been waiting, you know, it'd been chomping at the bit to get going again.
	And it seemed like all you really had to do was let it, you know?
	But that's not where we are.
	We had a disappointing jobs report.
	We've got inflation, which even now the officials are saying is not transitory.
	We're stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
	The supply chain crisis remains, though it's slightly improving.
	And I wonder, what do you think his biggest errors have been that have?
	Put us in that place.
	I'm one of only three senior officials in the Trump White House who was with the president all the way from 2016 during the campaign.
	Yeah, it was you, Scavino.
	And who's the third person?
	Miller and Scavino.
	Oh, yeah, Stephen Miller, of course.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So, why do I mention that?
	It's because when I was the president's top economic advisor in 2016, we had a mantra, right?
	I called it, The four points of the policy compass to grow our economy, right?
	I knew as a macroeconomist that Biden, Obama had been trying to spend their way out, kind of Keynesian spending their way out of what was actually a structural problem and it can't be done.
	So, Obama, Biden had basically doubled the national debt from $10 to $20 trillion, but without any noticeable impact on strong growth in wages.
	We had stagnant growth, we had stagnant wages.
	We got in there and it was like, The mantra was okay, corporate tax cuts, not to benefit the corporations, but to bring investment home.
	It was deregulation to make us more globally competitive, it was energy independence and strategic energy dominance.
	And most important for me, it was the fair trade so we could reduce the trade deficit and bring our jobs home.
	Those were four growth drivers we knew that would drive the economy.
	And then once I got into the White House with the president, we added a couple of things.
	One was certainly the buy American, hire American stuff, which was directly using executive orders to bring things here.
	It was increased defense spending.
	And as part of that, arms transfers.
	All of those things led to.
	Consistently beating the economic forecasts during the Trump administration.
	Every year we grew faster than what the CBO said we were going to do.
	And everybody's like scratching their heads.
	And I'm going, no, no, no, no.
	These are structural changes.
	Now, to your point, to your question, when Biden came in, he basically said about undoing every single one of those growth drivers in some way.
	Certainly wants to raise taxes.
	Regulations have already gone up.
	Our strategic Energy dominance and energy independence is in shambles as our gas prices have risen 60%.
	On the trade issues, he's backpedaling there.
	The defense budget has screeched to a halt.
	And so, on that alone, you can't expect a good result if you're basically killing those growth drivers.
	Now, on top of that, he's making some significant policy errors.
	I mean, if you look for the universal Vax policy, Megan, even if you Support that from a health point of view, you have to acknowledge that in a time where you have the worst labor market distortions we've ever seen and labor market shortages,
	if you put a universal backs policy that's going to take some portion of longshoremen, truckers, pilots, food processors out of the workforce, that is only going to exacerbate your supply chain problems.
	And so, and on top of all this, of course, There is the fanning of inflation by all of this crazy trillion dollar upon trillion dollar Keynesian spending, which is driving inflation up even as our growth is slowing down.
	And I'm old enough to remember vividly the 1970s stagflation, and we're basically set up for that kind of scenario again.
	What about the Democrats would say Trump added $7.8 trillion to the debt when he was in office with his tax cuts?
	And then, you know, the pandemic hit, which didn't help.
	But they, you know, it's not exactly like Trump was not a spender.
	He too was a spender, not to excuse Obama before him or Biden after.
	Biden's just, I mean, Biden's gone crazy with our money.
	But what do you make of that?
	Because I think that's a fair criticism that Trump spent a lot too.
	What do you say?
	Well, let's break that down.
	We spent a lot more on defense, guilty as charged, but we were at a situation where our combat readiness was really in a very compromised position.
	And part of The Trump doctrine was peace through strength.
	And I think increasing the defense budget was important.
	I think that when the pandemic hit, we were in the fog of war.
	And I think a lot of the money early that was spent was simply trying to fill kind of what we call in economics the recessionary gap from basically locking everybody down.
	So I don't think that was money poorly spent.
	But what we've done now is we've become, at least on the Democrat side, desensitized.
	To the longer run implications of government spending.
	And a lot of the spending we're doing now doesn't have the kind of target that we had in the Trump administration, which was to create jobs here, particularly blue collar manufacturing jobs.
	Instead, a lot of it is kind of pie in the sky and progressive redistribution.
	A lot of the green energy things are actually going to benefit China, where all the batteries are made and things like that.
	So, sure, I mean, I understand that critique.
	But we are just in another dimension with the kind of money that they're getting ready to spend in this last round.
	And that one, I think, Megan, could be the straw that breaks the stagflationary back if they have their way.
	And shame on Mitch McConnell for facilitating that.
	I mean, that is just inexcusable.
	He and Kevin McCarthy simply do not belong as leadership of a Republican party that is committed.
	To fiscally conservative, sensible economic policies.
	Well, we've gotten away from that.
	I remember back when I was young at Fox, it was like the Republicans, George W. Bush was talking a lot, and the Tea Party was born, you know, sort of tighten the purse strings and watch out and don't saddle our kids with this debt.
	And then the Republicans went silent on that, and so did the Democrats.
	And those of us who have the purse and the wallet were saying, hey, we're our advocates.
	I want to talk to you about the Chinese Olympics, because as I mentioned at the top, There's now a push.
	Now, the Biden administration says we're going to do a diplomatic boycott, which means we're not going to send any politicians to the Beijing Olympics, in response to which the world said, Yawn, who cares?
	No one wanted our diplomats there anyway.
	And of course, the Chinese pulled their typical, like, you can't quit, we fire you, or you can't fire us, we quit.
	We didn't want you anyway.
	I see the debate, right?
Uyghur Concentration Camp Horrors 00:05:10
	The athletes train for their whole lives for this moment.
	But you tell me, Peter, like, if you were in the White House advising the sitting president, would you push for a full boycott?
	Because, you know, on the one hand, it's the only thing that's going to make an impact.
	But on the other, It also has a very negative impact on our athletes.
	No question, I'd push for a full boycott.
	If you go back to the 2008 Beijing Olympics and simply look at the boost that gave to communist China in the world, you understand the political significance of holding these Olympics.
	And now, if you fast forward to 2020, I mean, let's think about everything communist China.
	Has done and is doing, not just to the United States, to the world.
	Let's start with the pandemic.
	I mean, one of the things I might go into the Oval Office and say to the boss, hey, let's boycott the Olympics until China comes clean about the Wuhan virus here.
	That would be enough right there because they're never going to come clean.
	But so China attacks us with a deadly pandemic, kills over 700,000 Americans, destroys our economy, and we're going to the Olympics?
	I don't think so.
	China.
	Puts over 2 million Uyghurs into concentration camps in Xinjiang province.
	And Megan, you know, the healthiest people in those prison camps are the people who are going to be used for illegal organ transplants.
	Those people, this is very well documented by human rights advocates.
	Those people who are unwilling organ donors will be stripped of their organs while they're alive.
	Anesthetized and then just literally burned.
	What?
	I mean, I've heard about the horrors in the Uyghur concentration camps, I've heard about forced sterilization.
	Brutal beatings and related torture.
	I have not heard about any of what you just said.
	That is unconverted.
	Yeah, what's troubling about this, and I know you're on the YouTube channel, so let me recommend my Death by China movie that came out like in 2012.
	It was an award winning film.
	There's an extended segment in there about how the Chinese communists traffic in organ transplants.
	It's one of their business models.
	People come in from Europe and elsewhere.
	You need a liver, you need a heart, you need a cornea.
	And they've got very extended medical records.
	At the time, it was the Falun Gong.
	And they would keep those people healthy, right?
	No, it's brutal.
	But my point here when you ask about the Olympics, so there's that.
	There's the matter of Hong Kong.
	Look, Hong Kong would not be under the jack boot of communist China today if not for the pandemic.
	Why do I say that?
	It's like the protesters were holding the jackboots at bay because they were out in the streets whenever they had to be.
	The pandemic allowed the communists to lock them up.
	Hong Kong fell.
	So we got Hong Kong, we got the Uyghurs, we got the invasion of this.
	We've got the Chinese communist military basically sending planes over the Strait of Taiwan to try to coerce one of the finest democracies in the world to submit to the jackboots of China.
	And look, here's the thing, Megan.
	When I was in the White House, one of my key missions was to deal with what I called in a Chris Wallace throwdown China's seven deadly sins.
	These are the seven acts of economic aggression that continue to this day, right?
	And it's the forced technology transfer, the cyber theft, it's the hacking of our computers, the dumping into our markets, it's the state owned enterprises, the currency manipulation.
	And yeah, they kill over 50,000 Americans a year with their deadly fentanyl.
	So, I mean, look, this.
	When you lay it out like that, the case seems pretty clear.
	Yeah.
	I mean, what are we doing, Megan?
	What are we doing?
	And the only reason why we don't take a tough stand on them is because corporate America continues to somehow think that they're going to be able to go over to that market and make a few bucks.
	And to them, I say two letters G. E, right?
	General Electric.
	You can go back not too far when General Electric under Jack Welch was like the tip, the top of the corporate chain.
	I mean, they were like kings of the world.
	What did they do?
	They went over to China thinking that they could conquer that market.
	And then they came back a pale shell.
	Yeah, and China learned a lesson.
	So, yeah, they continue to learn at every level.
The Latinx Identity Debate 00:03:30
	All right, Peter, I got to.
	I got to run, but I appreciate you coming on.
	Don't forget, his book is in Trump time.
	Always entertaining, always interesting to listen to you, Peter.
	We appreciate you coming on.
	Thanks for the time today, Megan.
	And remember, everybody, you can find the Megan Kelly Show live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111 every weekday at noon East and the full video show and clips when you subscribe to my YouTube channel, youtube.comslash Megan Kelly.
	If you prefer an audio podcast, simply subscribe and download for free on Apple, Spotify, Pandora, or Stitcher.
	It's time for another edition of one of our feature segments on the show called Thanks But No Thanks.
	This is a feature where we say thanks but no thanks to some absurd new talking point making news in the world.
	Today we're looking at the word Latinx, or is it Latinx?
	Either way, there are a lot of woke politicians using that word these days and diversity, equity, and inclusion types devoted to making that word a thing.
	You see, Latino Americans was a way to refer to a group of people, but Latino is a masculine word.
	What about the Latinas?
	Wouldn't they feel left out?
	Enter Latinks.
	At least that's what we think was behind its creation.
	So, what do Hispanic Americans or those Americans of Latin descent think of Latinx?
	According to a new poll of 800 people conducted by a Democratic firm last month, A grand total of 2% actually refer to themselves as Latins or Latinx.
	That would be 16 people out of the 800.
	Meantime, 68% use the term Hispanic and 21% use the term Latino or Latina.
	But here is the real problem for the Dems.
	Out of those polled, 40% say they're actually offended or bothered by the term Latins.
	40%.
	30% said they would be less likely to support a politician if that politician uses the term.
	Bad news for AOC, who loves dropping Latinks on Twitter.
	But it's not just AOC.
	No, according to a Pew Research Center report last year, nearly half of all Democratic lawmakers in Congress have used the term Latinks on social media, and they should be shamed, compared to just one tiny percent of the Republican politicians.
	Would you like to see what it looks like when an old Democratic politician uses the term?
	Let's watch President Biden struggle to explain why Black Americans and Hispanic Americans aren't getting vaccinated at higher rates.
	From June.
	There's a reason why it's been harder to get African Americans initially to get vaccinated.
	Because they used to be an experiment on the Tuskegee Airmen and others.
	People have memories.
	People have long memories.
	It's awful hard as well to get Latinx vaccinated as well.
	Why?
	They're worried that they'll be vaccinated and deported.
	What?
	Does he have any idea what he's saying?
	The pollster who led outreach to Hispanics for Barack Obama summed it out Why are we using a word that is preferred by only 2%, but offends as many as 40% of those voters we want to win?
	Good question, sir or ma'am.
	GOP politicians winning Hispanic American votes in greater numbers than ever before might be saying thanks for this dumb tactic.
	But for most of America, the response to Latins is thanks, but no thanks.
Political Perspective Shifts 00:02:29
	We'll be right back.
	Joining me now, Dana Lash, host of The Dana Show on Radio America, No Apologies on The First TV, and author of the new children's book, Pause Off My Canon.
	Dana, so good to have you here.
	How are you?
	Good to be with you, Megan.
	Good to talk with you.
	I know I miss seeing you.
	We used to have our semi biannual or biweekly gigs on the Kelly File and my show before that, and I always love having you.
	Yeah, it was good.
	And we saw you at your book launch in New York, and you were so kind.
	So it was good to see you and congrats on all your success.
	It's awesome to see.
	You too, lady.
	Dana is one of America's most loved women, but she also has a husband who's almost as awesome as you are.
	Almost as awesome.
	I'm going to give him that.
	He's pretty great.
	And he's the one who made you a Republican.
	I actually didn't know that.
	I didn't know that you grew up a Democrat until I was getting ready for this interview.
	Yeah, we used to argue.
	I think actually it was the birth of my first son that ultimately kind of did it.
	That did it in because when 9 11 happened, I had a four month old, almost five month old sitting in the living room floor in his little bouncy seat, and we were watching the buildings come down.
	On television, and it was just very surreal.
	And you just have one of those gut check moments like, What did I just bring my kid into?
	What kind of world are we living in right now?
	But yeah, we argued like cats and dogs.
	It's weird because I was never a Democrat by any measure of the word Democrat today.
	I was never that kind of Democrat.
	I guess you could at the time say I was just a moderate, but my whole family were all Democrats.
	I didn't meet a Republican until I went to college.
	And my family kind of laughed and said, I went to the big city and got brainwashed when usually.
	It's supposed to be the other way around.
	You know, like you leave and you go to college, you go to the big city and then you become a liberal.
	And kind of the opposite happened.
	But my whole family, they were all Democrats and mostly still are.
	So it was, yeah, it was very weird.
	It was a very weird time.
	And 9 11 and having my first child just totally cemented it.
	Yeah, I know.
	We can all look back at those key moments in our lives where we were exposed to a different point of view that made us at least more fair and balanced, to steal a phrase, when it comes to looking at politics.
	If you haven't had such an experience, I recommend you exposing yourself to different viewpoints, which you're probably doing by listening to this show if you're a liberal or a Dem.
	Okay, I want to start with this.
Gun Culture Responsibility 00:14:53
	You are a true expert on guns.
	You know, we're a spokesperson for the NRA for many years and somebody whose information I really trust because you know the laws, you know the evolution, you know, you know all the arguments.
	So I wanted, you were the first person I wanted to talk to with this school shooter whose name we're not saying, but he was at this Oxford high school in a suburb of Detroit, opened fire at the school, fired 30 shots, four students were killed, six others injured.
	And of course, he's been charged as he should be.
	But the turn of charging his parents is really interesting to me.
	They're basically trying to say the parents knew that he was a potential problem when they bought him the gun not long before this incident, and that they knew or had reason to know that he was a likely school shooter, so they shouldn't have done that.
	What do you make of it?
	Yeah, this is a really heartbreaking case.
	And it's so frustrating, especially when the parents apparently, I guess, after the prosecutor.
	Had the press conference and announced that they were going to bring charges to the parents.
	Apparently, they didn't tell the sheriff for them to get the parents in custody.
	So the parents hightailed it out of there.
	And there was something like, I guess they were going to take money out, $4,000 out of an ATM, and then they were a couple of hours away from the Canadian border.
	So I'm trying to separate all the different parts of the story because while some things are related, one thing does not necessitate or justify one particular charge or one way of the prosecutors approaching the case.
	So the parents, to me, I mean, on a personal level, And I don't know what I think about these parents.
	I mean, if you realize that there's something going on with your child, I'm so involved in my kids' lives.
	I can't imagine not knowing.
	I mean, my kids have phones, but they're not my children's phones.
	They're my phones.
	And if I want to check my phone and look at what your friends are saying on my phone, I will go in and check it any time of the day, any point, anywhere.
	And if they don't like it, they can go and they can buy their own phone, pay their own bills.
	They can be completely financially self sufficient and they don't have to worry about oversight from the dictatorship that is mom, because this is not a democracy.
	And so I can't imagine not knowing.
	And when I looked at the charges that the prosecutor was bringing, what I thought was interesting was that it was manslaughter charges.
	Now, there are negligence laws in every single state in the union that address situations like this.
	For instance, if you have parents that give their keys to their car to their child and their child is inebriated and they drive and they cause an accident, I mean, there's some culpability there under certain state laws with negligence, et cetera.
	But from negligence to manslaughter, Is a very interesting escalation.
	And I don't know what all the prosecutor is looking at because they haven't made every single thing public.
	We just know a few things.
	But we also know that there are, separate from the tragedy and the awfulness that happened, and separate from You know, using common sense as parenting, are we really going to go to that new level where we are upping from negligence to manslaughter?
	Because there are a lot of things that are going to fall under that umbrella that will affect people who do not own firearms and people who do not ever plan to own firearms.
	And so that's kind of what I'm paying attention to that precedent that may or may not be established.
	And additionally, I mean, that's a case that the prosecutor is going to have to make.
	I mean, if you're going all the way up to manslaughter, there are instances, and you know this with your legal background, Megan, that.
	Where prosecutors will bring, DAs will bring charges and maybe they're not able to prove them.
	They bring the strongest charge possible, but they're not able to prove it.
	And so they end up, you know, the suspect ends up walking because the state kind of overshot their mark.
	And I don't know if that's the situation here or not.
	I don't think this is a criminal case against the parents.
	I think the parents can be sued 100%.
	But I just don't see this as a criminal case against the parents.
	What I've seen so far is parents making irresponsible decisions and ignoring what may have been warning signs.
	I don't know.
	Until you get to the day in question.
	All I've seen in terms of prior to that day, and as you point out, there may be much more, but prior to that day, what I see is parents who bought their son, who we now know had severe mental problems, obviously.
	You don't shoot up at school if you don't, a gun, that they celebrated it on social media.
	I mean, it's okay.
	There's nothing wrong with doing that in the abstract.
	And that when he got in trouble for looking at ammo on his phone at school, his mother, rather than reprimanding him, said, LOL, I'm not mad at you.
	Just don't let them catch you.
	That to me sounds like a mother who enjoys guns and doesn't and wants her son to understand that they can be fun, you know, used properly.
	They can be, you know, an entertaining sort of pastime.
	And I didn't draw any terrible conclusions from her not getting upset that he was looking at pictures of ammo on his phone.
	If you're in a gun enthusiast family, that's not unusual.
	That's not some weird thing.
	That doesn't necessarily mean you're a school shooter.
	It's the other stuff that came later from what I've gathered so far, like the note that he was caught writing in class saying, you know, I, I, I want to find the quotes because I don't want to.
	It says basically, now I become death, destroyer of worlds.
	See you tomorrow, Oxford.
	Okay, that was something he posted.
	And then in the class, he got really dark and talked about how depressed he was.
	And it clearly suggested he might shoot people.
	And at that point, the parents were called in and did not want him pulled out of school.
	That was a mistake.
	But the theory, Dana, that these parents are so culpable, they sat there with the school believing he was about to.
	Shoot people and said, Keep him in school, keep him here.
	I don't buy that.
	I don't believe these parents understood what they were dealing with.
	And clearly the school didn't either.
	The school clearly didn't.
	I mean, when the parents are there at the school and they're talking about the kids' behavior and any kind of concerns they may have, and they don't check his backpack, and then three hours later, three hours later, this awfulness happens.
	I mean, to me, I think ultimately it all starts in the home and parents should be aware.
	And I think anyone listening would know that you and I are not disputing that.
	But you made a really good point when he was looking at ammo in class.
	Oh my gosh, if people saw my search results, it's ammo, dog sweaters, it's holsters, it's a bunch of weird stuff that doesn't make any sense.
	Algorithms hate me.
	And they're like, why is she looking for this now?
	I can't go anywhere without an ad popping up for a holster because I was looking for an inside appendix carry inside the waistband holster, specific kind for a specific caliber.
	And now I see them everywhere after I bought it, which is weird.
	I mean, that doesn't make somebody a criminal and it doesn't make them weird.
	It doesn't make them a criminal.
	And especially with ammo scarcity right now, I mean, yeah, everybody and their brother is looking for this stuff.
	But you make a good point in that I don't know what the parents knew, whether or not that excuses them from responsibility, I'm sure is going to be determined in court.
	But I just get really nervous when we start yoking people with the responsibility of somebody else's criminal actions because there comes a time when you are responsible for your own actions and criminal or innocent, and you have to bear the consequence for that.
	And I think of the precedent that that could establish with this.
	So, yeah, it sounds like the parents, you know, it sounds like she, you know, they were firearms enthusiasts and he shared that with them.
	But what broke, what happened, that's something that I think we should be examining, maybe even more than the fact that he was like Googling for ammo during class.
	The mental health breakdown is what we need to focus in on.
	What did they know about that?
	Because clearly you should not buy a firearm for a teenage boy or anybody, but especially a 15 year old kid if you know he's got mental problems.
	I mean, that, that, Seems pretty clear.
	People are upset, Dana, that the weapon wasn't locked up.
	And I guess Michigan doesn't require that.
	So I don't know that that's going to be the basis for criminal charges.
	But even last night, I saw some friends, and these are sort of more left leaning New York liberals.
	And they were like, that gun should have been locked up.
	There should be laws that the gun should be locked up.
	And I wonder what you think of that, whether there should be.
	They should change the law.
	And how is it that a 15 year old who may have been exhibiting mental health issues can get a gun?
	Yeah, well, I'm against storage laws.
	I'm against any kind of like the New York Pass, New York Safe Act, and there's a lot of other things that go along with that.
	I'm against storage laws because I think, well, who's going to enforce that?
	If you're establishing a storage law, mandatory storage law, is the state going to send an agent to come in and inspect and make sure?
	First off, who defines what is or is not safe storage?
	And then, secondly, who's going to come and make sure that your storage meets states' expectations for responsibility or their legally defined responsibility?
	I don't like leaving that up into the hands of a government that I think is more irresponsible than I am.
	And people, and especially government bureaucrats who I think know less about firearms and firearm storage than we do.
	We have, like, for instance, in my home, I have a number of safes in my home.
	I have a giant safe in my closet.
	I'm not going to say where all of them are because I feel like it's like giving out my alarm code, but I have a ton of safes all around my house.
	I have some biometric stuff, I have some regular old timey safes.
	I keep, I, Keep my firearms just because I like everything to be organized and orderly, and because I maybe will have a different EDC every day carry depending on what I'm wearing.
	Ladies carry a little differently than the men do.
	We don't wear jackets all the time.
	And so I like to carry a little bit differently, but I like everything organized.
	I like to know where everything is.
	I like the parents who are not like you.
	You are responsible with your weapons.
	I know that.
	But what about the dumbasses who get a gun and there should be a law?
	This is the argument, right?
	There should be a law so their gun's not sitting out there so the toddler doesn't walk by.
	Forget the teenager who's planning a shooting, right?
	I can see that why you'd have to say, yo, madam, that needs to be locked up at all times.
	Okay, madam, you got it.
	Like, why would we not want that?
	And this is, and again, I'm just against the state mandating storage laws.
	When it comes to parents who, like, say, new parents and they want to get their first firearm and they have a toddler in the home, parents, just like they teach their kids not to run out in the middle of the street, not to touch a hot pot, you need to also teach your children, look, this is a dangerous instrument.
	It can be used for defensive purposes, but there's no delete, there's no backspace key on this.
	Once this is squeezed, once this trigger is pulled, what is done is done, and you cannot take that back.
	And that's a lesson that kids used to be raised with.
	I mean, in my home, when I was growing up, we didn't lock up any of our guns.
	My mom had a.38 air weight or a.38 special that she kept in her nightstand drawer.
	My grandpa had rifles in his house.
	But the thing is, the deterrent of getting caught scared me more than what would happen if I actually behave with a firearm irresponsibly.
	Because my mom and my family made no bones about it.
	I would get my ass beat if I had touched that gun, if I had acted in an irresponsible manner.
	They would whip me out in the middle of the street for the entire town to see.
	And that was not something that I was willing to mess around with because it's a serious, very sobering lesson.
	And that's a lesson that parents need to not shove off responsibility for that.
	They have to take responsibility for that as well.
	And even if they don't have firearms in the home, I still think that parents need to educate their kids and eliminate that curiosity because kids, they're going to go look at something and inspect it if they're curious about it.
	If they know what it is and parents have instructed them, then they know better to, they know not to touch it.
	They know if someone that they are with in their kid group is behaving irresponsibly with something that they found, if they found a parent's firearm somewhere, then the child knows that they need to go and tell somebody because this is not a good thing.
	So, this is what my friends were asking me.
	They're like, don't, but don't you live in fear that one of your kids is going to go over to a friend's house and they're going to take out a gun, you know, the friend, like this is mom's gun or this is dad's gun, and something terrible is going to happen.
	And I said, I, of course, I don't want that to happen, but I don't live in fear of that because I know if that were to happen to one of my children, they'd say, that's not safe.
	Put that away.
	We should not be touching that.
	I mean, that's parenting, right?
	It's called parenting.
	TJ, the same way they learn don't, don't put your hand on the hot stove, don't stick your boot in the fire, you know, there's, don't have, have, Fun with that butcher knife.
	You know, there's certain things we have to teach them.
	And whether you have a firearm or not, firearm safety is important.
	But what we're already hearing now is the United States has too many guns.
	You could never unleash carnage like this if you were in England, where they, you know, they don't have guns.
	Even the police officers over there don't have guns.
	And so, really, what we're seeing here is this is gun culture and guns are the problem.
	Your thoughts on it?
	I think it's criminal culture.
	It's not gun culture, it's a criminal culture.
	And whenever we're compared with, you know, whenever we're compared with Britain or other countries, I mean, when you look at some of the violent crime rates in Britain and you look at the violent crime rates in the United States per capita and you adjust those numbers to our population, the arguments don't hold.
	And in the United States, the conversation always focuses on the bad that is done with firearms.
	No one talks about, which I think it's fair to include this when, especially when these lawmakers bring it up, people have to talk about defensive gun usage because defensive gun usage.
	There are more good people out there who responsibly use their firearms to protect themselves, protect their loved ones, and most without ever pulling the trigger, without ever squeezing the trigger, more so than the criminal, illegally possessed criminal actions that are taken with these inanimate objects.
	But that's never brought up along with this conversation because they don't want to address that.
	They don't want to address the fact that firearms are used more for good than not.
	There have been a number of criminal researchers, and I think the first to really Tackle this was Gary Kleck, who's a Democrat.
	Gary Kleck's a lifelong Democrat.
	He's down in Florida.
	He's a criminal researcher.
	He just likes fact and reason.
	He just, he actually follows science.
	And he's been working on this.
	He's researched criminal activity and firearms and for decades and decades.
	And other criminal researchers, they've tried to tear them apart.
	They've been unsuccessful.
	There have been other people in his field that have also gone and looked at this with their own independent analysis.
	And one thing that everybody agrees on is that defensive gun usage just, it vastly outweighs.
	The number of instances that criminals are using firearms.
	Now, when I look at that context, that's responsible usage, that's gun culture.
	If we're looking at the majority of actions that are taken with firearms, that is gun culture.
Gary Kleck's Criminal Research 00:03:26
	Gun culture is responsible handling.
	Gun culture is this is a defensive tool.
	And that's how I've always looked at it.
	That's how I was raised with it.
	And I don't know anyone that doesn't look at it that way.
	But what we do have, and I know, Megan, you've talked about this a lot, is a criminal culture in this country.
	We have this rot in our judicial system where we have district attorneys that will either drop charges, prosecutors drop charges against.
	You know, repeat offenders, especially if it's a felony gun charge.
	And Chicago ranks like one of the top cities for doing this.
	And this was something that their police officers have called out because you basically have the same group of criminals driving the homicide rate.
	And police just keep going out and catching the same guys over and over again, only for a judge to allow them to plead down to nothing or a prosecutor to drop the charges.
	And that's the ultimate issue here.
	We can look at every single one of these cities that have these high crime rates right now.
	And my city is St. Louis, St. Louis City.
	There was an instance.
	Of a teenage boy who ended up being shot and killed by police, not too far from where we used to live in the city.
	He was a repeat offender.
	He had led police on a high speed chase just the summer before, and he jumped out, had thrown the gun out, and he was supposed to be on house arrest, and he wasn't.
	He was, or sorry, curfew.
	He was supposed to have a curfew, but he was out after curfew.
	Plain clothes officer was in an area that had high drug activity, sees this young man who's out of his house, should be inside his house.
	He runs some other people in the party.
	Fire at the officer, the officer returns fire and kills the young man.
	And this kid was not even 19 years old yet.
	He would still be alive had he actually still been in jail, but the judge allowed him to just basically walk with a 1% bond.
	It's insane.
	Yeah, we've seen it time after time.
	Obviously, the most recent was in Waukesha, Wisconsin, where this guy, not having a gun, just having a truck, which can do a lot of damage, ran over the grandmothers and the children.
	And, you know, an eight year old died, and all these, you know, grandmas died.
	And the media moved on because it didn't fit any one of their favorite.
	Narratives.
	I want to close out by saying this.
	One of the things I learned, NBC wasn't all bad.
	And one of the things I learned in my segments there was I had all these moms of would be school shooters.
	I mean, these are moms who were saying, my kid is the next school shooter.
	It was the most powerful thing I did when I was there.
	I'll never forget them.
	And these were parents who recognized their children were unwell, that they were sociopaths.
	And their biggest complaint was, There's nowhere to put them.
	If they haven't yet committed a crime, we can't get them in the criminal justice system and get them locked up.
	Nor can a sociopath be therapized out of sociopathy.
	And so they're stuck, and the other children and their families are stuck living with this disturbed, dangerous individual.
	And my biggest takeaway, having done a bunch of research and a bunch of shows on it, was we need a facility in this country.
	There's one, but it's not very good.
	But we need a facility in this country.
	That a loving parent would put their child in who hasn't yet committed a crime but is likely to, who doesn't belong on the streets but would never be locked up by a judge.
	Something, the child would have to be under 18, obviously, or if they're over 18, you could petition for it.
Stephen A. Smith Recklessness 00:11:03
	But we need a place that even a loving parent would say, I could put my kid there.
	It's not going to be horrible, but for the good of society, this kid needs to be locked up.
	It wouldn't have helped in this case because these parents obviously were buying the kid a gun and celebrating his love of ammo and so on.
	But in many of the cases, It would.
	It would have.
	So, anyway, I'm going to steal the final word on it and more on that as the show goes on because I'm trying to round back to that.
	Up next, I'm going to talk to Dana about Alec Baldwin.
	Do you see what happened with him when he was confronted by the New York Post reporter?
	And Dana's new children's book, which kind of ties in with everything we're talking about.
	Don't go away.
	Okay, Alec Baldwin in the news for that awful situation on the set of that movie, Rust.
	He is, you know, he gave this interview to George Stephanopoulos a week ago.
	Mistake.
	Just be quiet.
	Just figure out what's going to happen.
	You don't want to be charged criminally.
	They haven't ruled you out.
	Just be quiet.
	There's plenty of time for a PR tour later.
	Of course, he wasn't quiet.
	Then he got confronted by New York Post reporter John Levine.
	Apparently, what I read is he was going, Alec was going into the home of Woody Allen.
	I guess he's staying at Woody Allen's townhouse.
	I was like, so many stories culminating together.
	Alec spent in a bunch of Woody movies.
	Anyway, watch what happened.
	He's on the itch.
	Wait, Mr. Baldwin, I have to ask you, what brings you to New York City?
	I asked you to leave.
	Mr. Baldwin, who's here?
	I asked you to go away.
	Please go away.
	I'm going to put a photograph onto somebody's private office.
	This is not in my room.
	Are you?
	This is private home.
	This is not any, this is public property.
	Go away.
	Who's here?
	Did you really not pull the trigger?
	Do you believe it went off without you pulling the trigger?
	Was it a malfunction?
	All right, is it just me or is Hilaria still using her fake Spanish accent?
	There's like a tinge.
	Is there not?
	How do you say cucumber?
	Oh, is that?
	That's just so.
	I asked you to go away.
	I have to tell you, Megan, fun fact.
	I, when I was at your, and I want to go really quickly.
	When I was at your book party, I double dog dared Mark Teeson.
	We were standing over in the corner.
	Alec Baldwin was there with his wife.
	And we were double dog daring each other to go up and say something to him.
	And he triple dog dared me.
	So I said, okay.
	And he, Mark's jaw dropped to the floor.
	And so I went over there and I was like, hello, Mr. Baldwin.
	And he looked at me like I was a two headed cow.
	It was the craziest, most uncomfortable thing.
	His wife did not say anything at all, but he was just, he just, he just, he was like a robot.
	He was like, okay, yeah, hello.
	And then that was kind of it.
	And then I walked back to where our little cluster of people were.
	And I thought Mark Teeson, Mark Teeson was three shades of red.
	I just built to make him uncomfortable and laugh.
	It was funny.
	Good times.
	You know, listen, I actually, I think I might be in the minority.
	I feel bad for Alec Baldwin.
	I don't believe he did anything intentional.
	I'm sure he's suffering as a result of this, but that doesn't answer any of the other questions about whether he has some legal responsibility, criminal or otherwise.
	I don't think there's going to be criminal responsibility for him.
	But obviously, he's going to get sued.
	His production company is through the eyeballs, and they're going to have to pay.
	And that's what insurance is for.
	But which is crazy that there wouldn't be criminal charges.
	And look, I have a history of not getting along with him, but I can put that aside because, again, I always am very, very wary of what could be established by any kind of legal proceeding.
	And I don't think that he acted out of any kind of malice.
	I don't think that he had planned to kill this woman, but I do think that it was recklessness and negligence.
	And maybe in the future, he will lecture people less when we want to advocate.
	For education and safety, maybe he will lecture those people less and listen a little bit more.
	And now that we see ultimately what can be the horrible result of not being responsible and not having that education and not being safe.
	That's why, in part, he's getting so much blowback from certain media outlets in certain corners because he is a judgmental guy.
	He's very political.
	He was defending Andrew Cuomo, for God's sake.
	It's like Andrew, never mind the other guy, but Andrew did not deserve his defense.
	And he's constantly attacking people and judging them.
	And so that's.
	You put yourself out there like that, you're going to get it back if you misstep, which we all do.
	Maybe not in this way, but I want to ask you about his claim.
	Because what he said to George was.
	That he didn't pull the trigger.
	We have the sound bite.
	I'd love to get your thoughts on whether you believe this.
	Here he is.
	It wasn't in the script for the trigger to be pulled.
	Well, the trigger wasn't pulled.
	I didn't pull the trigger.
	So you never pulled the trigger?
	No, I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them, never.
	What did you think happened?
	How did a real bullet get on that set?
	I have no idea.
	Someone put a live bullet in a gun, a bullet that wasn't even supposed to be on the property.
	And what he said in the longer clip, Dana, was it was a Colt 35, like old school.
	And that he pulled the hammer back.
	He said, I pulled it back as far as you could pull it back without pulling it back all the way.
	And then I let it go, and then the gun went off.
	And there was a gun expert who was speaking with Good Morning Britain who said, That's not possible.
	He said, It's highly unlikely.
	Maybe in some fantasy world it's possible, but he said, On this gun, you would have to pull the actual trigger.
	You could pull the trigger and make the hammer go, but you can't pull the hammer back and make the trigger go.
	That was what he said.
	I don't know that guy.
	I know you.
	I know you know your stuff.
	So, what do you make of this claim?
	Yeah, this, and this is where it gets into a lot of nuance about this type of revolver because this was a single action, it is an 1837 Pieta replica.
	I believe it was a replica made by a company.
	It's not, and my point in saying that is that it's not an old and it's not an antique gun.
	So, this is something that was made with modern methods to resemble what they used in spaghetti westerns.
	And I've heard a couple of different accounts from eyewitnesses on set where they say, He did have his finger by the trigger or in the guard, or he did not.
	But for his comment to Stephanopoulos when he said, Well, he didn't point the gun at anyone and I didn't pull the trigger.
	Well, he absolutely did point the gun at someone because that's someone who had the gun pointed at them was killed.
	And it gets into the nuance of the hammer and how single action works and cowboy loads and all this other stuff, which I think is important, but it's nuance.
	The important issue is that he was the producer on set, he's the top talent on set, he runs that set.
	He helps determine safety protocols for that set.
	He hires the armorer.
	He helps develop the protocols with the armorer.
	He has made enough films involving firearms over the past 40 years that he is not excluded from responsibility because of celebrity.
	And apparently, it seems that that's what he's arguing in this discussion with George Stephanopoulos.
	Now, with his revolver, whether or not he pulled the hammer back, it would be almost impossible for what he's describing to actually happen.
	The bottom line is that he was reckless in not checking the firearm.
	He was reckless, and you just pop the cylinder out, and it's very easy to see what's a dummy bullet and what's a live round because of the way that the cartridge is pinched off at the end.
	He could have very easily done that, especially as he was talking about with Stephanopoulos.
	They weren't even required to discharge a gun in a scene that was being filmed that day at all.
	So I understand what he's trying to do with his argument.
	I think it's reckless for him.
	This was kind of a Hail Mary, I think, by his legal team.
	He was very clearly told to go out and plant the seed of doubt in that, well, if there is even a 1% chance that this could have happened because it's a single action, then you put that seed out there.
	But it doesn't, that may result in over a technicality, a reduced charge.
	But the fact that he would skate on a criminal charge, that would be a political decision and not one born of fact.
	I feel like he didn't need to do this because no one is arguing he's the one who put the bullets into the gun.
	Whoever was responsible for putting the actual live rounds into that gun.
	Is the person responsible, assuming they knew that it was live rounds?
	You know, there's now a dispute.
	The armorer's dad is apparently the most famous armorer in Hollywood.
	And he came out and said this week he thinks that sabotage might have been to blame.
	There was a lot of motive, he thought, for sabotage, he said.
	Somebody wanted to, quote, to cause a safety incident on set, he said, through his lawyer, or his daughter's lawyer said.
	Somebody wanted to cause a safety incident on set.
	Nobody wanted anyone to be killed.
	We've developed evidence of motive here why they wanted to do that, why Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer, might have been a target.
	And that has all gone to the sheriff.
	Now, of course, the armorer has a reason to say somebody else sabotaged me.
	But my point is no one's saying Alec Baldwin took a live round and put it in the gun and then.
	Pointed it and shot, right?
	Like that would be true recklessness.
	He could charge, even if he intended to kill no one.
	He didn't need this.
	He could have said, Somebody gave me the gun.
	They said it was a cold gun.
	I trusted them.
	Okay, good for you, George Clooney.
	You always check your guns, but not everybody does that.
	And I did what she told me to do, which was I did point it near her and I did pull the trigger.
	And I shouldn't have done that.
	But pulling the trigger in and of itself is not recklessness if, you know, a billion guns are used on sets and bullets are, you know, fake bullets are used and so on.
	Like he didn't need it.
	It's just he's desperate.
	He didn't need to say his best defense is still results in some, it's still recklessness and negligence.
	His best defense, I mean, at the very least, there is a level of culpability there.
	And there's a reason why, with all of the films that are made in Hollywood involving firearms, there's a reason why there have only been a couple of instances in the past, I don't know how many decades.
	And that's because of the safety protocols that they use on set.
	So in one of my books, Flyover Nation, it was the last one actually before Pause Off My Cannon.
	That's my single action Colt Cattleman that I have on my holster on the cover of that book.
	And when we were in the studio shooting that, I brought that Cattleman because I wanted, there was a specific thing that I had in mind.
	I was actually basing it off of this old like spaghetti Western Vogue shoot.
	And I thought this would be actually a really cool message to convey, you know, and this would be a cool gun to use for it.
	And the people that were, you know, the photographer, the makeup artist, not exactly, you know, the bastions of conservatism, those industries, and they, to make them feel better, just because it's standard operating procedure and I'm just used to doing it.
	You know, we were very careful and like, this is, you know, telling people what it is, letting everyone see, you know, the open cylinder.
	This is empty.
	There's nothing in here at all whatsoever.
	There is nothing in the barrel.
	This is a completely cold gun just so that you are comfortable with it.
	And it takes a second to check that.
	And so, when the more he talks, the worse that he makes it for himself.
Teaching Kids About Guns 00:03:39
	And I just watched that interview thinking at some point his lawyer is going to dive in front of him and just put tape over his mouth.
	Didn't happen, sadly.
	Just awful.
	Now, speaking of you and your books.
	Let's spend a minute on pause off my canon.
	And what's, I mean, I get it, right?
	It's like you guys, I have it too.
	Here, same.
	So, what is the, I mean, I get the story, but sort of what's the point of the book?
	And it's part of a series, as I understand it.
	What's the point of the series?
	So, when I first was talking to the Brave Books, the people who do Brave Books, and they're a great group of people, and they asked if I would be interested in writing a children's book.
	And at first, I just thought, I don't know how to write a children's book because It's actually one of the hardest forms of publishing.
	It's a very difficult industry, and it's a very difficult thing to do to write a kid's book because it's not just, you're not just dumbing down content.
	You're speaking to kids intelligently in a way that they can understand.
	And you kind of have to put yourself a little bit in the mind of a child to be able to speak to them without being condescending and talking down and for kids to feel like they're being lectured.
	You want it to be super fun.
	And so I was greatly inspired by Warner Brothers.
	And when I was talking to the Brave.
	Books people, they were telling me about their illustrator that they were working with, Andre Colian.
	And he, I love the old Fritz Freeling stuff from the early Warner Brothers days.
	I just, it was very magical.
	It was very pre Burton.
	And I got a huge sense of that from Andre.
	And I was in our phone calls, I was saying, because art is so much part of this for kids' books, that it would have to be a really great illustrator.
	And they were showing me some of the other books that they were doing in the series and the other messages that authors that they were working with were very passionate about certain issues.
	And this is the way that they approached it.
	They wanted to do something about Second Amendment or self defense.
	And I think it's a great idea.
	And I think it's incredibly important.
	To talk to kids about this, but how do you talk to kids about it without being technical?
	You can't really include defensive gun usage and uniform crime reports in a book to kids.
	So, like, what's the best way to do it?
	Because what we have is a crime culture.
	Exactly.
	Crime culture.
	Kids, this is what the UCR say.
	Now, if you just go to Google and you look at the last available data from 2019, I mean, kids, they're just going to glaze over it.
	Their eyes are going to glaze over it.
	They're not going to get the message.
	Entertainment is the best vehicle for this.
	So, what's the best way to do it?
	So, came up with this amazing character, Bongo.
	And it has everything that I love.
	First, it has cupcakes in it for breakfast, which I think is amazing.
	And that's a culture that I very much want to be a part of.
	Coconuts, which makes some of the best drinks in the world.
	Cannons, everyone loves that.
	And I mean, the illustrations just brought it to life.
	I also have a cameo in one of the pages of this book.
	But Bongo is wanting to protect his friends and his community from these hyenas that are coming and taking all of their sweets.
	And if you've ever watched any Net Geo, I mean, I have a house of boys and they are, I was, I've, Watched every National Geographic program I think that's ever been created.
	The hyenas are jerks.
	They're jerks in every single one of these nature documentaries.
	I've never felt bad for a hyena.
	They're always taking off their bodies.
	Yeah, they're horrible.
	They're mean.
	They're mean animals.
	And so, of course, obviously, they're the bad guys in this book.
	So it's about Bongo taking responsibility and also giving a little grace to the people that he shares this community with, protecting them while also letting them come to the realization that self defense is important and we're important enough ourselves and we're worthy enough to defend ourselves.
Countering Far Left Ideologies 00:12:39
	And so, what I like about it is, you know, parents like you, like me, who are trying to counter program our kids against far left ideologies in the school systems, this is a good way to sort of plant the seed of there's another way to look at this issue on which you're going to get only one message throughout your entire time in the academic system.
	And it's not like it doesn't hit them over the head, it just kind of gives them a scenario.
	And the same way people try to teach socialism to their kids by saying, imagine you went out and you did all your Halloween candy searching for three hours and, you know, Johnny across the street did none.
	And when you got home, you had to give him half.
	That's socialism, right?
	Like, this is kind of like that.
	This is like, it's just a lesson.
	It's a story that makes you appreciate how self defense is important and how and what, how and when it might be important.
	So, anyway, I like it.
	It's a fair and balanced book for children.
	Pause off my canon.
	Highly recommend.
	Next up, I want to talk to you about what's happening with that school board association that labeled the parents domestic terrorists because they're losing a lot of money and a lot of schools.
	And part of this involves your school.
	A town that you're very familiar with.
	So, we're going to get into that right after this quick break with Dana Lash.
	Don't go anywhere.
	Dana, the fallout for the National School Board Association continues.
	Yay, right?
	Yay.
	Because I know you are a mom like myself who's been very outspoken about what's happening to our kids in these schools and all the indoctrination and so on.
	And shame on that group for referring to these parents at these meetings as terrorists.
	So, more and more of the schools are withdrawing from this.
	Association.
	They, I guess, have lost 17 state affiliates now, have severed ties with the group.
	And those 17 state affiliates accounted for more than 40% of the annual dues.
	So, they're losing money, they're losing groups.
	And to me, this is a great example of how, when more independent media fights back against something, right?
	Because this is not because of anything CNN did that the NSBA got embarrassed that they had to withdraw that letter.
	It was independent and conservative media saying, this is bullshit, fighting back, embarrassing them to the point where they had to withdraw their letter.
	And now we have all these states, 17 withdrawing.
	So, what do you make of it?
	I feel so encouraged to see that because it feels like there's a little bit of hope in this battle.
	And I know that there are so many parents who felt really lonely in this.
	I know you've dealt with this in your school district.
	I've dealt with this in our school district.
	And it's crazy because the more you talk about it, the more parents you talk to, you realize that there is not a parent out there.
	There's not a family.
	There's not a school district that's unaffected by this because that's how widespread it is.
	But to see these other school boards stand up to this national association and say, we don't appreciate it.
	What you were doing to the parents.
	We don't want to be affiliated with that.
	That's an awesome thing to see because it truly should be a partnership.
	And when you think about the school system and you think about education, these are people who say, let's work together and you can, let's educate our kids.
	We'll work with you as a partner.
	It's supposed to be a partnership.
	That's how education should be approached.
	It's not parents dropping off their kids and just giving total sovereignty and control over to these strangers and a bunch of bureaucrats, which that's how a lot of these districts are run.
	So it was very encouraged.
	It was encouraging to see that.
	And hopefully things can change in education.
	Maybe this is the first step to finally getting that voucher system that a lot of parents have been wanting.
	That's right.
	That case going up to the Supreme Court now that may change the law on whether your money can follow the feds' monies can follow the children instead of the school, which is what we need for real change.
	South Lake, Texas, where you used to live, has become the subject of an NBC produced podcast.
	What's that?
	Still live.
	Okay.
	Oh, still live.
	Okay.
	I thought you'd move from there.
	Okay.
	So they're doing a podcast on South Lake.
	This is the description A quote, affluent community with few Black families.
	The pride for the city and schools is painted in a concerning light in the podcast.
	The podcast picks up with a story that broke in 2018 in South Lake involving a group of students shouting the N word that circulated on TikTok and Snapchat.
	NBC frames the story.
	That critical race theory was a necessary implementation in the schools there because this city had to confront racism among the students head on.
	So, NBC's taking on your town.
	What do you make of that pitch?
	And they're sort of this is a defense.
	This is like the counterpoint to CRT is coming out now.
	Like it's necessary because the schools are full of racists.
	And they're trying to get that.
	They have the Department of Education, their civil rights division.
	They're trying to get there's been a bunch of FOIA requests filed.
	And what happened, Steady?
	They're trying to say that basically not implementing CRT is a violation of Title IX, which is insane.
	I mean, this is, this is, it's just, it's crazy.
	And on that podcast, there are a group of progressive activists in our town.
	And it's weird because they got as kind of, I think one of the women that this, it's a white male reporter from Houston, since race matters, I'm going to, to the left, I will identify him as that, doesn't even live in this area, doesn't even know this area.
	This guy comes up from Houston, Texas to push division.
	My respect for NBC after what they've done in our town is in the red after this because they had their trucks, their news trucks driving through, filming people's subdivisions, recording parents and students.
	It's insane what's been happening in this town.
	So, to walk it back just a little bit to let everybody know how this started.
	I think it was back in like 2013, maybe 2014 when this happened.
	There were two students who were on TikTok, and I don't know if they were singing a song or if they were just being obnoxious or what it was, but they said the N word on TikTok.
	And then people saved that video, and it went viral in Southlake and then it went viral everywhere else.
	And from that video, there was this established argument from some of these same activists that, well, the school district has a massive problem with racism, et cetera, which it doesn't.
	And for outsiders to say that there are a few Black families here, The people who are leading the charge on CRT in this district are people who immigrated from Cuba, Hispanic families, and Vietnamese families.
	And there are also white families too.
	But I find if we're going to have a discussion of racism, I find it incredibly racist that white reporters like to whitewash the participation of minority families in speaking out against CRT from the national discussion.
	That's the racism if we're going to have a discussion of race about this.
	So let me pause you for one second because apparently we do have a soundbite from it.
	So we'll get people a flavor of what we're talking about listening here from the podcast.
	What brought us here was a superior public school system.
	Welcome to South Lake, Texas.
	We're like, what's the catch?
	What's the catch?
	South Lake is an immaculate suburb outside Dallas.
	It's the kind of place where community is everything, where everything revolves around the schools and the town's pride and joy, the South Lake Carol Dragons.
	Touchdown, Carol Dragons.
	I was really happy in the beginning.
	A nine second video blew open some very old divides and exposed an uncomfortable truth.
	Your experience at school has a lot to do with your skin color.
	Oh, boy.
	Of course.
	I mean, they would have said that with or without the TikTok video.
	Right.
	Now, that's the narrative that they're pushing.
	And I think there's like a whole new niche world developing in journalism.
	It's the Grifter Division pushing racial divide, which is then that podcast is one of the first.
	Should I read?
	I don't think that's journalism.
	I don't think it's journalism.
	I think it's trying to create division and hate and sensationalism where their narrative doesn't actually bear out when you look at the actual, when you look at the demographics of the town, when you look at the facts of the matter, when you look at the people who have been speaking out.
	And as I was saying, some of the loudest voices on this are families who left countries where they're familiar with the Maoist cultural revolution.
	They know all the tricks of that trade.
	And when they see it happening here in the United States and in their own backyard, that alarms them greatly, as it should.
	And they've been some of the Biggest voices and the best organizers with parents against us.
	Of course.
	It's not just white parents.
	But, you know, I don't know if there's more.
	I haven't listened to the podcast, but if this is all they have, a nine second video where two morons use the N word, that's ridiculous.
	If you looked at any school district in the nation, you could find kids saying moronic things.
	You could find black kids saying racist things.
	You could find white kids saying racist things, Hispanic kids, and so on.
	This is to take one misstep and turn it into this.
	You know, an excuse to bash the town, but it's no accident that it's NBC, that the town's in Texas, that it happens to be affluent, and that the town is mostly white, right?
	None of which NBC would like, right?
	Or would want its audience to think it likes.
	Yeah.
	And they knocked the town because the town's well to do.
	The town is made from people who came from nothing, just like I did.
	And everybody worked really hard to get where we are.
	And we created and contribute to a nice community.
	And I don't think that the town or anybody in it should be ashamed for that.
	I think people who try to shame other people for that should be ashamed.
	And as far as the way that this was handled, I'll have to tell you.
	The people who have been advocating CRT, and that's ultimately what ended up happening after this video.
	From that video, and by the way, those two families, the two girls that were involved in that video, they had to move, they had to leave school and move to a different town.
	No joke, because there was no apology accepted.
	They apologized profusely.
	No one wanted to have a conversation about it.
	There was no apology.
	It was destroy, destroy, destroy.
	I think that everybody missed a really valuable opportunity to show that, you know what, we're humans, number one, and humans are a horrible species.
	We're just awful, wretched beings.
	And we make a lot of people, everybody makes a lot of mistakes.
	There's nobody that's perfect.
	Teenagers, especially.
	Especially.
	Pecking order.
	I mean, just to take it back to Netgeo, humans aren't that different from the pecking order and the hierarchy.
	We are the hyenas.
	Yes, we are.
	Just like we establish out in nature, so is it in our communities.
	And there was a really missed opportunity.
	But Megan, from that, they wanted to establish this crazy curriculum.
	First off, they wanted to eliminate the SRO program.
	What that had to do with it, they ended up dropping that because taxpayers had, we had voted on that to fund it, you know, a million dollars.
	And they wanted to take that, that school resource officer program.
	Oh, okay.
	Defund that.
	Then they wanted to create a commission.
	And this is all in their documentation online.
	They wanted to create a commission of unaccountable people.
	We don't know who they are that would, that would create, that would track students' microaggressions from, Lord, to senior.
	And they, they, they defined it as subconscious, consciously or subconsciously done.
	So, if you don't use the right pronouns, if you don't do this or that, that would be tracked and added onto your permanent record.
	You had to take classes about equity.
	They were going to bring in a chief diversity officer.
	All of this because of a video.
	Look, and I volunteered.
	I'm like, if your kid's acting up, or if you know of a kid that's acting up, you bring them to my house.
	We'll get that straightened out right quick because that stuff doesn't fly here.
	That's how the community should solve it, not like this.
	You know what?
	This reminds me of when Bill O'Reilly got outed right after I got to Fox in like 2000.
	It got outed that he had had the Andrea Macris case where he harassed this woman and she had him on tape and, you know, whatever.
	He settled for, I don't know, over $10 million was the rumor.
	Anyway, the point is, for years after that, all of us had to take twice annual sexual harassment seminars.
	And I'm sitting there thinking, I'm fucking sitting here because of Bill O'Reilly.
	I don't need to sit here.
	Not all of us have to sit here because of Bill O'Reilly.
	This is bullshit.
	And now we now know that people are actually using it for tips on how to sexually harass.
	My point is, it doesn't work.
	It did not stop anything.
	But it's ridiculous to make the entire town and all the student body suffer for the moronic behavior, nine seconds worth of two young girls who sound like they were very sorry.
State of America and Harassment 00:01:33
	Anyway, this is the state of America.
	I, for one, am happy to know you're out there fighting the good fight.
	Dana Lash, love you.
	Love Chris.
	Thanks for coming on and good luck with the book.
	And Megan, always good to see you.
	Congratulations on the serious show and much love to you and Doug and the kids.
	Just so appreciate seeing you.
	Thanks, Han.
	We're all shooting for you.
	Oh, love that.
	Such a dear couple.
	One of these days, Doug and I are going to go down there to Texas and we're going to do a little wild boar hunting with Dana and Chris, which I've asked.
	That'd be fun.
	As you know, I only eat the non cute animals.
	And I think I'd have the same policy when it came to hunting.
	I would only hunt the non cute ones that are terrorizing Texans like the wild boar do.
	Okay.
	Thank you all so much for joining us today.
	I want to tell you that tomorrow we have a great guest.
	I've been looking forward to this conversation.
	Mark Garagos is here.
	And we're going to talk all sorts of current court cases like Justice Smollett and Kim Potter, the officer who.
	Shouted Taser, Taser, and then shot a gun.
	And some of the classics he has seen firsthand.
	We'll talk Scott Peterson.
	We'll talk Michael Jackson.
	Garagos is, he's the Waldo of law, he's connected with it all.
	In the meantime, go ahead and download the show, Megan Kelly Show, on Apple, Pandora, Spotify, and Stitcher.
	You can check us out visually by subscribing to our YouTube channel, youtube.comslash Megan Kelly.
	Thanks for listening, and we'll chat tomorrow.
	Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

Chapters

00:00:15 Fauci's Gain of Function Claims
00:14:48 Pfizer Data Manipulation Allegations
00:30:52 Vaccine Interference with Antibodies
00:33:03 Economic Growth Drivers and Inflation
00:41:57 Uyghur Concentration Camp Horrors
00:47:08 The Latinx Identity Debate
00:50:38 Political Perspective Shifts
00:53:08 Gun Culture Responsibility
01:08:01 Gary Kleck's Criminal Research
01:11:28 Stephen A. Smith Recklessness
01:22:31 Teaching Kids About Guns
01:26:11 Countering Far Left Ideologies
01:38:51 State of America and Harassment