The Megyn Kelly Show - 20230607_cnn-ceos-shock-firing-and-trans-ideology-in-school

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

June 7, 2023 - The Megyn Kelly Show

01:36:54

20230607_cnn-ceos-shock-firing-and-trans-ideology-in-school

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
CNN's Ego and Lost Trust 00:15:15
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations.
	Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly.
	Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show.
	Today, we've got a big show for you.
	We're going to hear from two former female high school track athletes out of Connecticut who are suing after they were forced to compete against biological males.
	We first brought you this case right after the podcast first launched, and I mentioned it in my talking points the other day on why I'm done with the gender madness.
	Now, these two young women have seen their case through a lot of trials and tribulations.
	So far, they're losing.
	But the Second Circuit Full Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the case.
	And that's a glimmer of hope.
	We'll get into it.
	Then we're going to be joined by one of my favorite Twitter follows, Peachy Keenan, as Pride Month goes into overdrive.
	But we begin with the way forward for CNN and the breaking news out of that network.
	That is the subject of today's memo.
	Less than five days after a devastating piece on CNN Chief Chris Licht appeared in The Atlantic, Licht is officially out at the network.
	His boss, David Zaslov, the very guy who promised The Atlantic reporter an interview in which he was expected to support Chris Licht and say glowing things about him, only to then back out of it altogether, now tells the CNN newsroom, Licht tried, but thanks to a myriad of problems, he's out.
	So much for Licht's assurance to The Atlantic that David Zaslov has my back.
	Like any media executive, he did until he didn't.
	It's a disgusting industry.
	It's how it works.
	The problem for Chris Licht was not entirely his vision or that of CNN's new owner, Warner Brothers Discovery, to remake CNN into a more fair and balanced network.
	The problem was one of ego, style, and approach.
	Licht inspired, as far as I can tell, no one.
	He was not adept at building relationships at all.
	He seems to be a man with a fragile ego who obsesses over press coverage, not of the news, but of himself.
	He came in with a lot of swagger on the heels of a beloved leader being quickly ousted.
	Yes, Jeff Zucker was beloved, biased, and responsible for ruining the network, but he was beloved.
	That situation required some tact and perhaps some hand-holding.
	And Licht seemed incapable of either, focused more on his newly svelt machine-like body, that's a quote from him, and typing his name into Google than on earning the respect of his staff.
	Which leaves the question: can anyone turn CNN around?
	The problems Licht was trying to solve are very real, whether CNNers want to admit it or not.
	CNN has lost the trust of its one-time large audience.
	Its brand has changed from most trusted to most pathetic.
	Jim Acosta and his enormous ego, Breonna Keelar and her sneering coverage of anything Trump-related, Allison Camerada and her snide judgments, Christiane Amampour and her smug elitism.
	Even formerly benign anchors like Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer are now more associated with the resistance than with straight news journalism.
	The soul-searching, tearful meltdown post-Trump Town Hall is just the latest example of how far the left, how far left the network has gone.
	Are we in the news business or aren't we, folks?
	So what now?
	Can anyone rebuild this brand into, if not a Sterling name, then at least an acceptable one?
	Zucker tried to make CNN into MSNBC by design.
	He saw no market for a nonpartisan news network.
	In doing so, he attracted many liberal viewers who already had and have their choice between virtually every network save Fox and Newsmax.
	But he sacrificed CNN's appeal to its centrist audience, never mind any right-leaning viewers who did not consider themselves never Trumpers.
	Chris Licht tried to undo that bias, but with the same anchors and the same audience who were already hooked on the crack cocaine of hating Donald Trump.
	No wonder it didn't work and the channel's ratings are now in the toilet.
	Seriously, they are regularly losing to Newsmax, which is in some 20 to 25 million fewer homes than CNN with probably one 1,000th the budget.
	Discovery Time Warner bought this asset reportedly wanting to make it more fair, less biased, less hateful toward Republicans and the right, but not disdainful of the left either.
	You know, the way CNN used to be.
	It really did used to be that way.
	I used to watch it while I was on Fox.
	That's going to take time.
	A lot of it.
	Zaslov seems to know that.
	In March, he spoke to the CNN newsroom, acknowledging what Jeff Zucker had done, that he had gone hard partisan.
	And while that brought some more viewers in, Zazlov reportedly said, it's not what I came here to do.
	Even saying, as they turned this ship around, quote, ratings be damned.
	And they were.
	So can CNN be salvaged?
	The hope is clearly that long term, they will win enough audience back from the middle and the right to make CNN a profit leader again.
	Change out the far left audience.
	But they forgot the other part of the formula.
	The workforce must change as well.
	The ones who cost the network its reputation in the first place.
	The far left producers deciding on CNN's online and show content.
	Their influence is enormous and extraordinarily brand damaging.
	Roger Ailes hired plenty of lefties.
	News leans left, especially straight out of journalism school.
	But they had to be open to a different way of covering the news or they would not be hired there.
	CNN has activists who will never embrace a fair and balanced mission.
	Each one of them should be rooted out and fired.
	That is the only way.
	And then there's the talent.
	Tolerable as secret lefties who had their own political views, but were at least generally respectful to the other half of the country while on the air, they were coaxed, goaded, and encouraged by Jeff Zucker into letting their leftist flags fly during Trump.
	They laughed at his voters, mocked at them, derided them.
	The examples are legion.
	They spat all over everything from gun rights to pro-life beliefs to voters' questions about the fairness of elections to their doubts about the COVID hysteria, not to mention the Black Lives Matter abuses, gender insanity, and sexualization of children in school.
	None of that, none of it got a fair shake on CNN under Jeff Zucker or since.
	Why?
	Because no one kept their hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel and too few internally had a basic instinct to be fair.
	If I were David Zaslov, I'd be pulling an Elon Musk.
	I'd fire a lot of people, a lot of people on air and off.
	Anyone whose views did not align with the new mission of unbiased news would be given a severance package and shown the door.
	CNN is well known to be one of the most grossly overstaffed media companies in the business to begin with.
	They can take a massive staffing cut, trust me, and they will be just fine.
	Remember when Netflix was getting pulled to the far left and staffers wanted the bosses to terminate their deal with Dave Chappelle?
	It took absurd demands like that to make those in charge finally say, no, no, we will platform people of all views.
	And if you don't like it, there's the way out.
	The Wall Street Journal went through this too.
	In July of 2020, 280 of its staffers, this is a more right-leaning publication.
	280 of its staffers openly demanded changes to its opinion pages after pieces appeared that they found objectionable.
	Pieces from people like, oh, Vice President Mike Pence on COVID and Heather McDonald on the left's lies about systemic racism.
	The company refused to be cowed, telling the whiners it would not bow to cancel culture and that these staffers were free to work elsewhere, adding, quote, the anxieties of the staff are not our responsibility.
	Pitch perfect.
	CNN, it's your only choice.
	The anchors and reporters who have alienated the viewers you are trying to win back need to go.
	Firing Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, and Brian Stelter was a start, but I'm afraid the problem went well beyond that.
	And so must the solution.
	You're going to have to say goodbye to still more talent and many who work behind the scenes.
	I have nothing personal against these folks, but they sacrificed their credibility during the Trump era and that of their network.
	And there is a price to be paid for that.
	It is the only way forward.
	The rub of all this is it may not work.
	I'm not at all sure CNN is savable, but this is its only chance.
	And the Chris Licht replacement needs to not only be mission focused, a term Licht was apparently fond of per the Atlantic, which is ironic since he apparently failed to share that mission with the staff who were reportedly blindsided to read about it in The Atlantic, but also someone who knows how to lead.
	Not everyone understands that.
	To maintain the authority of a boss and also has a proven record of inspiring people to follow him or her.
	To that person who has not yet been chosen, lots of luck.
	You're going to need it.
	Here to discuss it all is the executive producer of the Megan Kelly show, Steve Krakauer, who is also a media watcher, has a media newsletter called Forthwatch, where he keeps an eye on people in our business and what they're doing mostly wrong.
	Steve.
	Okay.
	So where do you stand on it?
	The breaking news this morning.
	Chris Licht is out.
	It's on some level shocking to me, although maybe it shouldn't be.
	You know, the last time I was on here talking with you about a big media story, it was April 24th and Tucker Carlson getting the axe on a Monday morning in a shocking way.
	That was really shocking.
	You know, this one, I think the writing's been on the wall in a lot of ways about this.
	I think that we've seen the leaks against Chris Licht from inside that newsroom, from, as far as we can understand, very prominent people from anchors and behind the scenes executives.
	That's been going on for close to the entirety of his time at the network.
	So almost a year that this has been going on, leaking to people like Dylan Byers and the New York Times and elsewhere.
	More recently, obviously, in the wake of this, really, I think the straw that broke the camel's back Atlantic story, it's been getting louder.
	And so perhaps it was inevitable and certainly felt that way to a lot of people that I talked to after the Atlantic piece published.
	It was just a matter of when, not if he was going to be out at some point.
	So this was, it was fast and that was a little bit shocking on my end.
	But I will say this.
	Look, I know Chris Licht.
	I've known him for a long time.
	We've had our ups and downs.
	I've written about in Forthwatch how he once blocked me on Twitter because he didn't like something I said.
	We've gotten past that.
	And like you, I think that the mission that Chris talked about in that Atlantic piece and has a little bit publicly, that was a mission that I support.
	And I think that is the right move for CNN.
	It's frankly the only move for CNN.
	And we can get into why, that I believe that establishing CNN as a trustworthy source of objective news is much more important than the day-to-day ratings that happen on that network.
	Even from a business perspective, from what happens with cable providers, they need to make themselves boring old CNN that people just trust again.
	That is truly a strong mission, not just for CNN, the business, but I think for America.
	I don't know not to be too big, big picture about it, but I do think that we need strong news like CNN used to be, at least what they strive to be.
	And they just completely went away from that.
	So I'm disappointed in that.
	But the only solace I would say that I feel right now is also that David Zaslov's still there.
	John Malone, who I know people have talked about, he's still there.
	Discovery is running the show and they want that CNN still, even if it's not with Chris Licht.
	Right.
	So my take, it seems to be the same as yours, which is the mission is a good one.
	The leader they chose turned out not to be.
	He was not the right man for the job.
	I think his ego really ruined his chances.
	He lasted 13 months.
	And if you read that Atlantic piece, it makes clear it was his ego, as Mark Eiglars would say, was not his amigo.
	That it was just he was too much about himself.
	He didn't build relationships.
	He didn't reach out to the staff enough.
	He can't just go in there all swagger and say, there's new boss in town.
	I'm changing everything.
	You guys sucked before I got here.
	And now do it my way.
	I mean, there does need to be some amount of finesse.
	And he apparently didn't get that and also just wasn't a natural born leader.
	You know, I mean, few are, to be honest.
	Few are.
	You don't have a lot of Jocko Willinks running around out there in the media landscape, but he was about as far away from it as he could be.
	And so those, that combination wound up being toxic and failed, made him fail in the execution of the Malone Zaslov mission, which is a good one.
	Right, right.
	Yeah.
	No, it certainly seems that way.
	And I think one of the biggest things that stood out to me in that Atlantic piece was that if you're an average CNN staffer, let's put aside people like the Jake Tappers of the world or Oliver Darcy, the people that like Oliver Darcy, you know, celebrating today, the person, the people that have been firing missiles at Lick's direction for a long time from inside the building.
	But if you're just the average staffer, you probably learned a lot about what Chris Licht thinks about the old network, about what his mission is, what he wants it for the future, how he sees it evolving in that Atlantic piece.
	And perhaps you didn't necessarily even fully know that when the last year has been going on.
	Now, maybe you've gotten hints of it here and there.
	Obviously, there's the big Trump town hall, which I think is perhaps the precursor to this, not the actual town hall itself, but the massive fallout, both internal and external to that town hall, I think was maybe step one towards the beginning of the end in some ways.
	So you're learning a lot about that.
	And I think that that is a problem.
	It's the ego that you saw in it.
	Like you talk about having a reporter follow along on your morning sessions of working out and talking about being a machine.
	I mean, like you talked about yesterday.
	I mean, that's just, that's not what you want from a leader.
	You don't want that to be what your legacy is going to be.
	But also you want to make sure that everyone, maybe they're not going to be on board with that mission.
	Those people, like you said, should be shown the door still today, but you want to make sure you're communicating that to the average person that's working at the network and make them buy into this new mission.
	That's so much of the problem.
	But the thing that we're, you know, people saying, oh, this is because of the Trump Town Hall.
	The left is going with a totally different narrative right now on Twitter.
Cleaning House at News Nation 00:12:29
	They're saying, oh, I mean, I'll just give you one example.
	John Cooper, former Dem Finance guy, tweets out, Breaking Chris Licht is leaving CNN after doing horrible damage to the network's reputation.
	That's not what happened.
	That's not why he's being pushed out.
	He didn't have the support of the staff for all the reasons outlined thus far on this show and in the Atlantic piece and so on.
	But, and then, yes, there's a core group within CNN who didn't believe in the mission, but he did not ruin CNN.
	He did not do horrible damage to the network's reputation.
	Jeff Zucker is the one who ruined CNN, Steve.
	Yeah.
	Look, and that is, I think, what's going to be missing in all this.
	And also, why I think all these people who are dancing on the grave of Chris Licht today are going to be sorely disappointed when whoever that next leader is brought on from Warner Brothers Discovery, that mission's not going away.
	So it's going to be a different person that's going to be executing that.
	But I don't think they're going to like where it's going if they think that's the takeaway from this.
	No, there's a column that was published yesterday, which kind of prescient today, but Perry Bacon in the Washington Post, just a shockingly terrible column called CNN's Chris Licht showed the problem with anti-woke centrism.
	And what he has described as anti-woke centrism is that he's saying that Chris Licht embodies an increasingly prominent American media and politics among powerful white men who live on the coast, don't identify as Republicans or conservatives, but have this anti-woke mentality that as he concludes this piece, I mean, you've got to go and read this piece.
	This is so bad.
	I can't tell if the anti-woke don't understand what's actually happening in America or if they actively oppose a more equitable country.
	This is the takeaway from this person.
	And I have to say, this has been shared widely among the people that don't like the Chris Licht vision of CNN.
	And I think it's so wrong.
	One of the biggest things that I think Brian Stelter of the World didn't like in that Atlantic piece was Chris criticizing CNN's COVID coverage.
	And he criticized them.
	It wasn't in the Atlantic Piece, but Semaphore then later published it.
	That he was criticizing it with a background to it.
	They did a poll of why are people losing trust in CNN?
	Number one was liberal bias.
	Number two was Chris Cuomo.
	Number three was the way they covered COVID, the hysterical, overly dramatic way that they covered COVID.
	So he's absolutely right about that.
	The people that love the resistance TV of Jeff Zucker are completely wrong about what the average person in America thinks of CNN and would like from a CNN.
	And that's just the loud Twitter crowd that's making a lot of noise here.
	He's got to do an Elon Musk.
	Elon Musk got rid of 80% of the Twitter staff.
	And yes, they had a glitch when they launched with Ron DeSantis because of volume, but Twitter's been working just fine other than that.
	And he's making it.
	I mean, it's lost a lot of profit given all the problems.
	But the point is, you can't create a new mission for a social media company or another media company with the same staff that's committed to a very different mission.
	How are you going to get Don Lemons fired, right?
	What about all the staffers who laugh just as hard behind the scenes in that sneering video that you found, Steve, that we've shown many times with Rick Wilson and Wajahad Ali, right?
	Laughing about how the Trump viewers are so stupid with like their maps, their maps and they're like, how those staffers are all presumably still there.
	So you cannot like cleaning house is firing Don, firing Stelter, firing Cuomo, that's not cleaning house.
	And the viewers know it and can feel it.
	Yeah, it's very hard.
	Right now, the revamped, what people see on air too, are essentially the same people.
	You mentioned all these people, Breonna Keeler.
	I mean, she's just now, I believe she's on it from nine to noon or from one to four.
	She's in one of these news slots.
	It's a different version of her.
	Jim Acosta is now on the weekends and he's doing maybe a slightly reduced version of it.
	Everyone remembers.
	No one's stupid.
	Everyone knows what these people were only a couple of years ago and what they were empowered to do a couple of years ago.
	It's very hard putting that genie back in the bottle and trying to just run it back with the same staff.
	And so I think that's another just total misconception.
	And I completely agree with you, people behind the scenes too.
	If you're not on board with this idea of getting back to the news version of CNN, and there are people inside who I think were a little bit leery of the way it's CNN drifted during those Trump years and like the direction that it's going back, those people can stay.
	There's some of those, but the rest, you got to go.
	And another big storyline that's being made these days, or these past few days, really, is the ratings that, you know, oh, well, well, the ratings are so terrible.
	I mean, before Chris Lick took over, there's a Forbes report from February of 2022, right before Chris took over in that last year.
	CNN had lost 70% from the previous year in that time.
	This was before Chris took over.
	The demo at that time was 126,000, the demo prime time number there.
	Horrible.
	Yeah, this February, 122,000.
	So, okay, it's, I mean, it's negligible.
	I mean, the ratings were terrible before Chris Lick got in there.
	And I just, I think it's really important to note that what matters to the bosses, you know, they say, David Zaslow says, it doesn't matter about the ratings right now.
	Sure, eventually maybe it will.
	What matters is getting that brand respectability back.
	So when you go and negotiate your next contract with the Comcasts of the world or the direct TVs of the world, you can say people trust us.
	That's what they lost.
	And these 126 versus 122, it's all bad.
	It's not getting better, sure, but that's not what matters most.
	What matters is getting the brand back right.
	It's going to take years if it's possible at all.
	I agree, it's worth a try, but you've got it like in the same way the new owners came in and said, CNN Plus has got to go.
	This is a disaster in the making.
	We're not putting more money into this nightmare.
	Get rid of it.
	Nobody wants to watch John Lemon in front of a talk show audience or Anderson Cooper Cook or whatever he was doing.
	And they got rid of it.
	They need to do the same thing with CNN proper.
	They just do.
	And if you look at CNN Digital, which is really their money-making arm, it's as biased as it ever was.
	Somebody needs to put the hand on the tiller there, too, because half the stuff we make fun of on shows like this comes from CNN.com.
	So it's not just the on-air talent.
	If you really want to change CNN back to the way it used to be, you've got to say to the staff: either you get on board with a new mission or you get out or we'll kick you out.
	That's the way it's going to be.
	It's a business, not a daycare.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, we've talked about this too, Megan.
	Like it's going to be harder to do that.
	It was always going to be harder to do that if you're Chris Licht with the 800-pound gorilla in the room, right?
	Donald Trump running for office again makes this that much more challenging because with every indictment, with every time that Donald Trump brings up January 6th, okay, well, now we've got our opportunity to go through run the greatest hits of the quote-unquote big lie.
	And it's hard to change those muscles or that muscle memory or what was requested of the staff in the old days.
	It's hard enough to do that if Donald Trump's not involved, but he is involved.
	He's going to be very, very involved over these next 18 months.
	And you need a very steady hand and you need buy-in.
	You need the full buy-in of the staff if you're not going to just make the same resistance TV mistakes that you made over these last seven years when Donald Trump was running for office and then when he was in the White House.
	So it's going to be a challenge no matter who's there.
	But if those people are not on board with, we're going to do Donald Trump differently.
	Let's just start there.
	You're not going to fix anything.
	No, they are activists, as I said, and it's going to be very tough to get them to turn in any event.
	They're programmed.
	It's like you've been programmed to hate him, to absolutely loathe him, to think he's a Hitler-esque character.
	How are you going to cover him fairly?
	And so they should be given the chance.
	Either you try and you succeed, or get out, get out, and we'll give you a soft landing with a package and a nice recommendation.
	But they ought to think about it long and hard because media jobs are hard to come by.
	They really are.
	Health insurance, it's fun to work in news.
	A lot of people want to do it.
	You want to walk away from your CNN job because they want to become more fair, because they want to go back to being less biased.
	Get out.
	You know, you should just get out.
	Go work for a hard partisan.
	Go work for Rachel Maddow.
	Don't pretend you're in the straight news business because you're not.
	I want to add this, just a little color from page six of the New York Post reporting that Licht was blindsided by his ouster.
	That's kind of tough to believe given the amount of articles that had come out since that Atlantic piece on Friday, but they say insiders say he had meetings on his calendar for Wednesday.
	That's today, which as of Tuesday night, he was expecting to attend.
	We're told that after a mortifying profile in the Atlantic was published over the weekend, the infamously confident Licht thought he was going to ride it out.
	Sources tell us his longtime pal, Warner Brothers, Discovery CEO, David Zaslov, surprised Licht when he delivered the news that he is being replaced.
	I mean, if he was surprised by it, I think he was the only one, Steve, because how many pieces do we have saying he's done?
	He's out, he can't survive this.
	He's lost his staff.
	Yeah, I everyone I talked to, every single person believed much more strongly than I did, I have to say, that this would be the end.
	And it's hard to survive massive profiles like this.
	I've heard the Tim Alberta piece, you know, which he wrote the Atlantic article as a hit piece.
	I really think that's a wrong positioning of it.
	I actually don't think it really was an unfair piece to Chris Licht.
	In fact, I think it actually was sort of a pretty representative idea of exactly what was happening there.
	I mean, I know you read some of these hilarious moments on Friday about Don Lemon and what was happening in the control room there.
	That made Don look bad, essentially.
	And a lot of Chris's points in there were, I think, like you and I would agree with.
	But he said it to a reporter.
	He said it in that way.
	It was framed in this way that's going to just, it's going to be a bomb exploding in that newsroom that already was very leery of the way he, of where he was leading in that way.
	And my understanding from talking to people today is that opened the floodgates, that the last vestiges of people who had his back or at least were willing to ride it out said, that's it.
	I'm going to my bosses.
	I'm going to every boss I can talk to and saying, we're done.
	And that really was the beginning of the end there.
	You know, it's true because while you and I agreed with all the criticisms of how CNN handled COVID and Trump and so on.
	And as you point out, the CNN viewers reflected that in polls and focus groups that Chris Licht had seen.
	When it comes to messaging as the boss, you do need to handle that kind of thing gingerly because it's the same staff working for you right now that committed those sins.
	And so there's a way of correcting them because in the CNN staffer's defense, they were unleashed by Zuckerberg into bias.
	So as the new boss, there is a sort of a tact that would be required in helping them come to see how we're going in a new direction now.
	And we believe that you were given the wrong instructions by the wrong leader, at least with respect to CNN's brand.
	Your personal politics don't matter, right?
	You can be as far left as you want as long as you cover the news in an unbiased way.
	And what the Atlantic piece wound up being was him bashing CNN at every turn, the old CNN, having almost nothing nice to say about the current CNN, having a lot of nice things to say about himself and appearing extremely vain and obsessed with himself, which was already a feeling that the staff was getting.
	So it was mishandled from start to finish.
	I don't know what's going to happen to CNN.
	I care a little because I do think it would be good for the country to have, you know, one network that has, you know, power, that has reach.
	Like with respect to News Nation, they're trying.
	Their numbers are like single digits in the thousands.
	But CNN does have huge reach, global reach.
	So if they could turn it around, it would be a delight.
	It would give us all something to tune to, at least when there's breaking news.
	In the meantime, good luck and stay with us either way, because we got your back and we actually truly are fair and balanced news.
	Thanks to Steve Krakauer and my crack team, too.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thanks, Megan.
	All right.
	When we come back, the Connecticut runners in their legal battle now getting more and more weighty, more and more important.
Title IX Case Opportunities 00:15:28
	This is a battle that can affect every school child potentially in the country and where their fight stands when it comes to girls sports.
	Ukens annonsør er Alente.
	Okay, sommeren er fantastisk, men la oss være ærlige.
	Det er ikke bare sol og idyll hele tiden.
	Noen dager regner helt bort, og ungene våkner grytidlig, og andre ganger trenger du bare litt ro og en god serie å koble av med.
	Da kan jeg tipse om Alente Stream Flex 2.
	For bare 79 kroner i måneden får du da 12 TV-kanaler, TV2 Play basis med reklame, via Play film og serier, og to ekstra streamingtjenester som du velger helt selv.
	HBO Max, Prime Video, Sky Showtime, you name it.
	You get the whole family and it works over all.
	On the phone, on the phone, on the phone, on the phone or on the Chromecast on TV after a strand day on Granka.
	Alente works in the whole EU and EUS.
	All you need is net.
	And Alente, right?
	Three months, 79 kr.
	No binding, just TV and streaming.
	Just like you want to do it.
	Go to alente.no and test it in the summer.
	Tilbudsprisen på 79 kr. får du i tre måneder.
	Deretter gjelder normalpris på 499 kr. per måned.
	Joining us now, two former high school track athletes, Chelsea Mitchell and Alana Smith.
	They, along with two other athletes, filed a lawsuit over a Connecticut policy that forced them to compete against biological males in their high school competitions.
	The case was dismissed in December of 2022, and it was given a second chance in February.
	Ultimately, it was heard yesterday by the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
	They join us now, along with their attorney, Kristen Wagoner, CEO and president of Alliance Defending Freedom.
	Love Alliance Defending Freedom.
	This is the group that fights these fights across the country, and we are all better off because of them.
	Ladies, welcome back to the show.
	Great to see you again.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	So, when we last spoke, you girls had graduated from high school, I believe, but had brought the lawsuit because you'd been damaged.
	Your records didn't reflect your actual accomplishments.
	These biological males had taken titles that you might have otherwise gotten, had taken opportunities that you might have otherwise gotten, and even potentially scholarships.
	You just don't know.
	And you were in the legal battle.
	Now, you lost.
	The trial court judge said, You graduated, so you're not gonna, the problem's kind of over.
	Call it mootness in the law.
	And you know, you lost your standing to bring this case, so frustrating.
	Um, and then you appealed it, Kristen, to the Second Circuit, which is a very liberal court, very liberal courts in the New York area.
	And you lost there, too, is my understanding.
	But then you asked for the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case.
	Is that right?
	Well, actually, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided to hear it on its own.
	But yes, they heard it yesterday, and oral arguments were held yesterday in New York.
	Well, that's big.
	That is very big because normally, when you go up to an appeal in a federal court, you just get a three-judge panel.
	You don't get the entire circuit of judges in the Second Circuit.
	When they sit and listen to it like that, they're interested.
	And it means they are potentially interested in overruling the ruling that went against you.
	So that's one glimmer of hope.
	Let me start with you as the lawyer.
	How did it go yesterday?
	It went great.
	I mean, unfortunately, a lot of these decisions come down to ideological views of the judges.
	And that's something we always have to struggle with.
	There were 15 on the panel, but the questions were very friendly to us in many respects.
	And even the hostile questions, we had good answers for.
	You know, the case boils down to, Megan, a motion to dismiss.
	These girls haven't even had the right to go to court yet.
	So that's what this issue is about is whether they can even have their case heard.
	They've never even been heard on the merits, which is that girls should be able to compete on a level playing field.
	So we're anxious to be able to assert the legal theories that we have because we know they're right and hoping that the Second Circuit will allow us to do that.
	Isn't the standard to get around the mootness objection?
	You know, like this case is moot.
	They graduated, something like likely to repeat itself, likely to repeat yet incapable of review or something like that.
	Like, in other words, the fact that this is likely to keep happening should allow it to be heard.
	That is one of the exceptions to the mutinous doctrine, but we don't even need to rely on that exception.
	The important point here is that these girls filed their lawsuit when they were in high school.
	And what's egregiously wrong with the way the trial judge handled it, among other things, is that he waited 14 months from the time that we filed the complaint to dismiss the case after they graduated is when they never did rule on the marri on the merits.
	So under the law, the issue is whether essentially we have ongoing harm.
	Until those records are corrected, we have an injury.
	And that's what you're required to demonstrate in the law.
	An injury that can be redressed.
	They can fix those records and they need to do so.
	In addition to that, they've certainly lost the podium spots and the opportunities, but they can't even put that they were winners on their resumes, for example, for job opportunities.
	So we feel strongly and believe that the Second Circuit will vindicate the right of these girls to go to court.
	And that's really what's at issue as a first step.
	One of the annoying things, Chelsea and Alana, in reading the case is how the court and the ACLU, which is representing the other side, come out with, she won.
	Look at Chelsea won this.
	Alana won this.
	What do you mean?
	They were winners.
	They did have the opportunity to win.
	As if if you managed to pull out a W in one race, it should be enough that, you know, who cares if it was an unfair race in 10 others?
	I wonder how you felt reading that.
	I'll start with you on that, Chelsea, about how, look, you did win.
	And in fact, the court accepted that the Second Circuit wrote, plaintiffs simply have not been deprived of a, quote, chance to be champions.
	Well, I mean, there were four state championships where I should have been at the top of the podium, but instead that honor went to a male.
	And in the races that I did win, those were still unfair races.
	And there were girls that still lost opportunities in those races because of the biological males in that race.
	And so it doesn't really matter.
	We need our records fixed to reflect what actually happened in the race.
	And that is not what they currently say.
	One of the other things, Alana, that the ACLU is pointing out is you both did go on to race in college and obtain scholarships too, from what I read.
	And so what are you complaining about?
	Like just you didn't lose anything.
	Well, like Chelsea said, we did win a few times, but it's bigger than just me and her and the other girls involved in the case.
	It's about the girls that didn't make, didn't get to advance to other meets and didn't get scholarships.
	And so it's just about doing it for future generations of women and just making sure that we don't become sidelined in our own sport.
	Megan, and Megan, I'll just point out on that alone, as Chelsea said, she lost down on four state championships.
	Those boys, two boys in a three-year period, took 15 state championships and set 17 state records.
	I mean, just think about that.
	In 85 times, they displaced girls.
	So it's not just about the other girls.
	It is about Chelsea.
	It is about Alana.
	We don't know what scholarships they could have gotten had Chelsea gotten all of the state championships that she should have been rightly awarded.
	We don't know that.
	What we do know is that those records are wrong, that it was unfairly administered in terms of the rules and that they need to fix it.
	So I think that it's a- Right, there's a difference between winning this one and winning that one and looking like Flojo to the colleges who are doing the recruiting.
	And the entrance of two biological males into your competition may have been the line between you in those two places.
	Exactly.
	I mean, there is a difference between 10 state championships and one.
	We know that intuitively.
	But now this whole thing, Kristen, comes down to whether Title IX, which protects girl sports, includes those who identify as girls, gender identity.
	Is that included in the word sex?
	You know, your biological sex used to protect you when it came to women's sports.
	And now, under, I think it's Connecticut state law and certainly the policy governing the public schools, sex includes gender identity, somebody who identifies as female.
	So what is that?
	Does that require the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to say those are invalid interpretations of Title IX?
	It is, they are invalid interpretations.
	What we know Title IX was intended to do is to ensure that both sexes, the two sexes, have equal opportunities, equal benefits.
	And the regulations under that even say that includes that girls should be able to compete based on their competitive abilities, based on their skill sets.
	They shouldn't have to essentially have less competitive races that their brothers have, for example.
	And so that's how Title IX has always applied.
	And it's how I believe it will continue to apply when we eventually win this issue.
	There are many states who have a law like this.
	Connecticut has a law saying you can race according to your gender identity.
	I think it's 29 states.
	So if this case were to go all the way up to the Supreme Court, we could be changing law in a lot of places.
	Your thoughts on it.
	Well, there are 21 states that actually have taken action to ensure that males can't compete against women.
	They recognize the truth that men and women are different, that the physical advantages are different, and they can't be overcome simply through supplemental hormones.
	And so states are recognizing that.
	21, just I think as the last count was just a few months ago, where 21 states have protected it.
	But ultimately, this comes down to a federal law question as well.
	It's kind of a belt and suspenders approach, you might say.
	And the question is, does Title IX require the other side saying it requires men to compete as women?
	And our position is no, Title IX requires that you give women and girls equal opportunities and fair play.
	And so that's the final question that will need to be decided by the Supreme Court.
	And it hasn't decided that question yet.
	The two biological males who decided to run against you girls, I mean, the case of Terry Miller is particularly shocking.
	Did you both race against Terry Miller?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And so can you tell us the story of Terry Miller and what happened with Terry Miller when he was racing against you girls as part of the girls team?
	Yeah, so my sophomore year, actually, Terry raced on the boys' team in the indoor season, and then in the outdoor season, switched to the girls' team.
	And Terry, I'm not sure the exact number, but Terry was blowing us girls out of the water.
	I mean, I remember at the State Open Championship in the 100 meters.
	Is this Terry in the red?
	Is this Terry in the red?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Terry won by like over half a second to the second biological male.
	And then me and the other female finishers were after them.
	But the both of them just blew us out of the water consistently.
	And what, I mean, that's amazing because you have the same person racing as a boy and a girl.
	within a few months, within a few month period.
	So, I mean, Alana, help us non-athletes understand what that feels like when you show up there and you're at the starting point and you look over and there's, there's a biological boy or two who you now know you're going to have to try to beat.
	Yeah, it was so frustrating because I know, I mean, I used to spend hours, um a day at track practice just to shave off, I mean tenths of a second, hundreds of a second, tracks of sport where just like a little bit of time off is huge, and it was just so frustrating to line up and just feel like I was racing for second place and even if I was trying my hardest, I knew that I wasn't going to get the top spot and then just to know that me and the other girls were and we would, we didn't have a level playing field.
	Yeah.
	Well, there was a case in California recently.
	Did you girls see this where there was, um, uh, a track meet and same thing.
	Biological boys were participating at the high school level and they, they were winning.
	And, um, one of them said, I was so proud of myself.
	One of the boys, I was so proud of myself because I managed to shave 17 seconds off of my time in the past few months.
	And I just read that as a non-runner, like, well, that, that sounds good.
	But the female runners were like, that doesn't happen.
	That doesn't happen for female runners.
	Shaving 17 seconds off in a couple of months is that basically what you're saying, Alana?
	Yes, I mean, 17 seconds is huge, because even just half a second, a tenth of a second, is huge in track.
	And yet were there any requirements?
	You know in your state that do you, that you know of um, that they, that they, you know take, that they reduce their testosterone, that they do something to reduce the biological advantage, as if we could get rid of all of them.
	But at least on the testosterone front Chelse no the, the cis policy was pretty much just, if you identify as a girl, then you can run on the girls team.
	There was no policy that you had to lower testosterone or anything.
	They are saying now Kristen well, there's no one you can point to on the current team uh, in Connecticut current teams that has a biological man.
	So you know it's over.
	There's only a handful of these people in the country.
	You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
	Well, unless you have your head under a rock, I think that you know that this is a problem around the nation and around the world.
	We are going to see women continue to lose equal opportunities, continue to lose the ability to compete on a fair and level playing field if we don't start to stand up and speak up and insist that our rights Be protected.
	And again, there is harm done when you are asserting a claim in court.
	You need to prove that you have an injury and that the court can do something about that injury.
	And when the records are not corrected, justice is not done.
	And that's an ongoing injury that the court can address.
	I mean, we know that when, you know, think about examples where people are cheating, caught cheating after running a race, whether it's they have testosterone, they're taking hormones, they were ineligible to compete, too old, too young, whatever.
	They have a system that they use to correct those records.
	And that same system needs to take place here.
	It's just too big of an issue to let go.
	And again, it's just shocking to me that we can't even get into court after three years.
	Yeah, that's right.
	And then they have the nerve to tell you you're too late after keeping you on ice for 14 months.
False Starts in Sports Categories 00:07:19
	There was an extraordinary moment on MSNBC yesterday that I've been wanting to ask you about ever since I saw it late yesterday.
	Nicole Wallace hosted the head of the Southern Poverty Law Center in a discussion over biological boys participating in girls' sports in what I consider just a shockingly out of touch discussion.
	But you're the ones who actually had to live this.
	So I'm more interested in what you think.
	Watch this.
	There are maybe 100 trans athletes.
	And to be clear, as an ex-Republican, I think they're only upset about trans kids who identify as girls.
	How do you explain the gap between the reality that there are less than 100 trans kids playing sports and the rise and the platforming of hatred?
	This is very much a coordinated effort.
	There are actually 12 anti-student inclusion groups in the country that are pushing to ban certain books, ban curricula, punish teachers who talk about inclusive education, and generally make our school boards miserable.
	So essentially, your position is classified as hate.
	What's your response to that, Chelsea?
	Well, it only took two biological males in our races to take 15 state championships away from girls.
	And really, this is just a women's rights issue.
	I mean, we just want to be able to win just like the male athletes at these meetings.
	I mean, why do all the male athletes get to be champions, but the women are sidelined?
	Like, that's not fair.
	And we deserve that right to win.
	What do you think, Alana, when you watch that and they are categorizing people like you who object to this situation as really just part of hateful groups who are against inclusivity?
	It's extremely frustrating because it's all about fairness and it's all about finding a spot for everyone to play the sport that they love, but it's about finding where it's most fair and having biological men compete with biological women is just so unfair.
	And like Chelsea said, we deserve to be champions too, and we shouldn't be sidelined in our own sport.
	You, last time you gals, came on, we talked about how you, Chelsea, and maybe you will too, Alana, but you did have a couple races where you beat these competitors, these male competitors.
	And you had pointed out to me, Chelsea, that in at least one of those, I think it was a couple, there were actual reasons for that that may not have to do with your incredible ability to beat men so much as the fact that there were false starts by the male runners in those races, which doesn't get reported by the media or the judge.
	The judge, you know, like they're like, hey, you beat them without pointing out that there was a false start.
	I thought it was interesting because after our interview, this is just July of this past year, Andrea Yearwood, who's one of the trans athletes, discussed your lawsuit on Vice TV and had thoughts about that false start.
	Listen to this.
	The lawsuit came out, I think, my junior year of high school in order to not only stop me from running, but to also like erase all my records from the record book throughout high school and all my medals.
	So kind of erase me from the tracks here in Connecticut like altogether.
	When I first saw the news, I really tried to put it in the back of my mind, not worry about it yet.
	And Jay, you're like, we have bigger things to worry about.
	You'll meet tomorrow.
	Try to focus on that.
	I guess why Jada is coming out the best of me and I false in.
	So it was jitters that led to the false start, but no apology for the fact that this person's running and taking your titles and your medals anyway.
	What was your reaction to that soundbite?
	Well, I mean, I think about all the state championships that I lost that I deserved to be the winner that haven't been rectified.
	And, you know, those three races where I won against these athletes, there were two false starts.
	And so, you know, it's just an inaccurate representation of what happened, you know, on the race that day.
	I mean, I was nervous too.
	I had filed the lawsuit two days before.
	So I think we were all equally kind of jittered up and nervous at the meets.
	But that's a lot of fun.
	Shout out to Alana.
	He said that he says in that clip, you want to stop him from running.
	You want to erase him and his records.
	Your response to that.
	Well, like I said before, it's all about fairness and everybody does deserve to play the sport that they love, but it's about finding where it's most fair.
	And obviously, biological males should not compete in the women's category.
	And that's why we have sex-separated categories in sports.
	Like an open category would be a solution where they can race other people in the open category, but not just take all the girls' medals.
	Kristen, I'll give you the last word.
	How do we like our chances now with this full circuit reviewing it?
	And when do we expect an opinion?
	Well, we don't know exactly when we'll get an opinion.
	It will take probably weeks, probably months, actually, before we get a decision.
	There are other cases that are also pending that ADF is litigating.
	I think one thing that we haven't touched on that would be important for your listeners to know is that there's a 10 to 50% performance gap between men and comparatively trained and fit women.
	That is a flat biological reality that doesn't change.
	And that's what makes, you know, the false start and the jitters.
	What he's actually saying is that he should have won that race had he not had those jitters.
	And what we're saying is, no, the law and policy needs to reflect biological reality.
	You shouldn't be, you shouldn't have been in the race to begin with.
	I mean, I would love to see a test case go up on this.
	I know, Kristen, you guys are handling cases about forced use of pronouns on the college setting and elsewhere.
	Do you think there's a glimmer of hope in those cases?
	I just feel like they're so committed to this ideology, it's all an uphill battle.
	But it's one worth fighting.
	I mean, we know that unjust laws create real harm.
	And you look at these kids who are being confused.
	How can we not speak up?
	How can we not fight it?
	And I do have hope.
	I mean, we've won the pronoun issue in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
	We have laws right now that are being put in place in progressively left states that deny parents the right to be able to get their children help to overcome gender confusion or same-sex attraction.
	And that's just through listening and counseling.
	This has to be stopped as parents and people that care about the next generation.
	We need to ensure that our laws reflect biological reality.
	It's common sense and it's the way to protect freedom in the future.
	Yes, this is America.
	This is America.
	We're still allowed to speak the way we want, especially if it's consistent with reality.
	Ladies, thank you so much for telling your story.
	We'll follow it.
	We'll look forward to the decision and good luck to all of you.
	Thank you.
	Wow.
	It's unbelievable.
	It's unjust.
	And the Second Circuit better do the right thing.
	We'll be right back.
	The Daily Mail now reporting that the beer brand Modello has officially overtaken Bud Light as America's top selling beer.
	Take that, Bud Light.
	Bet you're missing your fratty audience now.
	Bet you really miss your beer guzzling frat boys, don't you?
Moms Liberty Hate Group Labels 00:15:04
	Not a lot better without them, is it, Alyssa?
	Bud Light had held the number one spot for the last, oh, 22 years since 2001, when it topped its sister brand, Budweiser.
	Modelo makes Modelo beer and also, as Debbie Murphy, who is a teetotaler told me, Corona.
	Canadian Debbie.
	She's so fun.
	But Modello's sales are up about 16%, 16 from last year.
	Bud Light sales are down about 23%.
	It's truly, you know, go woke, go broke.
	Hope you're paying attention, Target.
	My next guest is the perfect person to talk about all of this.
	She is one of my favorite people on Twitter when it comes to the culture wars.
	She posts under the pseudonym Peachy Keenan.
	Get it?
	Peachy Keenan.
	She doesn't use her real name in order to try to shield herself and her family from the shitstorm that comes your way when you talk honestly about these issues, but she is revealing herself on camera now because she is out with a new book.
	It is called Domestic Extremist, a practical guide to winning the culture war.
	Peachy, welcome to the show.
	Thank you so much, Megan.
	It's so great to be here.
	Oh, it's great to see you.
	It's great to see you.
	And I don't question your choice at all.
	We've got these guys from Ruthless and one of the guys who's part of Ruthless is comfortably smug.
	And he comes on, you know, that's not his real name.
	And he comes on with his disguise of just sunglasses and a baseball cap.
	But it's kind of become a joke now.
	But I mean, you do get a lot of blowback when you take honest positions on the culture war issues.
	Yes, you do.
	I mean, that's why I started tweeting under this crazy pseudonym, because at the time, I was working full-time for a very large, very well-known media company here in Los Angeles.
	And, you know, there was no way for me to express my very dangerous, you know, conservative opinions under my real name.
	I would have been, I would have been not only, you know, fired and canceled, but probably like beheaded.
	I mean, there was just no way that I could have been myself.
	And a lot of dissidents like me, you know, conservatives feel the same way.
	I mean, I have a lot of friends who are sort of hiding in the closet at work, you know, and going along with it to get along.
	I mean, that's just so common.
	Especially on the left coast.
	So the book is called Domestic Extremist.
	And you have in it a domestic extremist quiz.
	I'm going to go through this with you in the audience so that the audience can figure out whether they too are domestic extremists.
	This is fun.
	I actually took the test this morning.
	There's 12 questions.
	Number one, I am married or would like to be.
	Now, audience, pay attention to how many of these are a yes for you.
	I am married or would like to be.
	I want or have at least three children.
	I want or have four or more children.
	I or my wife stays home with our baby, or I wish I or she could.
	I believe parents are a child's primary authority and educators.
	Kids generally do best when raised by their married mother and father.
	I would not trust the average politician or child care expert to walk my dog.
	We try to attend religious services as a family.
	Life begins at conception.
	Children cannot choose their gender.
	Sex education should be left up to parents and not taught to elementary school-age kids.
	Promiscuity, pornography, and abortion are not conducive to long-term happiness.
	If you answered yes to one to three of these, yikes, you might be a domestic extremist.
	Yes to four through seven, four to seven of these, warning, you are definitely a domestic extremist.
	Eight to 10, red alert.
	You are a dangerous domestic extremist and should expect a knock on your door by a government official shortly.
	11 to 12, bye-bye.
	Have fun in the gulags.
	I came in at a strong 10.
	I was 10 out of 10.
	Nice.
	So I'm with you.
	Yeah.
	We're going to be sharing a cell in the gulag, you and me, Megan.
	But this is real.
	And I wonder with your LA friends, what do you think the average score would be out there?
	You know, probably, you know, three to four.
	And I mean, it's funny, since I kind of have come out now with my face, I am expecting like a few very surprised text messages in the next few days as like word leaks out.
	Although, like, I don't think any of them watch any of the media that I've been doing.
	But it's definitely scary.
	I mean, the thing is that most of my friends who are on the left, who are liberals, who are Democrats here in Los Angeles and in New York, they already thought I was crazy.
	You know, I think having a third child already kind of marked me as like someone on the fringe to them.
	I mean, that's how strange it is.
	Yeah, you can't have more than two.
	And then like when I converted to Catholicism, you know, that was like the real like, oh, now she's a freak.
	That was the straw that broke the camel's back.
	It was.
	I get it.
	I get it.
	Especially because, I mean, I've lived in New York for almost 20 years, but I've paid a lot of visits out west.
	And it's a special kind of liberalism out there.
	I mean, the New York liberals are very judgy and they hate conservatives for sure.
	But the LA liberals have a more elitist quality to their to their liberalism.
	Like they really do look down on you if you don't see the world as they like.
	You're genuinely a bad person.
	Yeah.
	I mean, like I read about in the book, there is some memoir in there because I grew up on the west side of Los Angeles and I myself was like a snob towards conservatives or anyone on the right or Christians.
	You know, I looked down on flyover country.
	You know, I was better than that.
	And I've just had this sort of very interesting journey, like done a total 180 politically, you know, in terms of my faith, my social conservatism.
	And so I really kind of don't fit in here.
	Although I will say, you know, there are a lot of surprisingly, a large number of conservatives here.
	I went to a book reading a few weeks ago, actually in person, and young men were coming up to me and they were going to, they go to like local colleges in LA and they were fans and they're fans of yours.
	And I was like blown away to know like we're not alone here, even in the heart of deep blue California.
	So how did that evolution begin for you?
	So my parents were sort of like Reagan Republicans, but I ignored them.
	I kind of rebelled against them.
	And I, you know, went through high school and college and came out a fully woke, liberated, feminist, you know, militantly pro-choice woman.
	And my 20s were for avoiding pregnancy, avoiding marriage, having fun, dating, you know, finding out who I was, all that stuff.
	I believed all the whole, the whole package of feminist, you know, lies.
	And I think politically, I sort of started to change right around 9-11 when my kind of like latent patriotism was sort of awakened.
	When I saw people burning the American flag like that day in Union Square in New York.
	And I was like, wait, what?
	That's weird.
	I didn't, I didn't even know people like that existed in America.
	I thought we were all on the same team.
	And so I became a political conservative after that.
	And then when I met my husband sometime later, he had been sort of newly red-pilled.
	He was pro-life.
	And really the process of wooing me and flirting with me, he kind of wooed me over to his side, to the dark side.
	And I became, you know, officially conservative.
	But was it closeted still with respect to your friends and not your family, I guess, but your friends?
	Yeah, we had some friends who were sort of aligned with us, but I remember we were, we would like, we would like get threatened.
	Even among my friends in New York City, they would be shocked and they were shocked and appalled that I was dating, you know, a horrible conservative man.
	You know, he'd been in the military, like he, how, how could I be betraying my feminist friends?
	Um, so we just sort of, you know, what do you what can you do when you have friends like that?
	You just kind of have to peel them off and you kind of distance from them.
	And we got new friends.
	Good call.
	Well, you know, I'm thinking about it because your book is so timely.
	I don't know if you saw this clip that we did in the last segment of Nicole Wallace, but this knee-jerk instinct to label somebody as an extremist or as hateful just because they disagree with you on these culture war issues is really dangerous.
	And it's all too common.
	I go back to, I'm going to play the clip in a second, but the Southern Poverty Law Center used to be, used to be a well-respected group that if they labeled somebody a hate group, you'd be talking about the KKK.
	You know, you'd be talking about a group we could all agree is a hate group.
	Then during the 2016 presidential election, they labeled Ben Carson an extremist.
	They put him on their extremist list.
	And then they took it, they took it down.
	And this was one of the quotes they took issue with that Ben Carson had said: if we can redefine marriages between two men or two women or any other way based on social pressures, as opposed to between a man and a woman, we will continue to redefine it in any way that we wish, which is a slippery slope with a disastrous ending as witnessed in the dramatic fall of the Roman Empire.
	So, what you're hearing here is a Christian man who believes in the biblical approach and definition of marriage.
	And for that, he got put on their extremist list.
	Ultimately, they had to change that after the outrage.
	So, that's 2014 that happened.
	Now, yesterday on MSNBC, I'm going to show you.
	We can just play the normal clip, you guys.
	I'm going to show you what happened between Nicole Wallace and the now head Margaret Huang, who's now running the Southern Poverty Law Center and the exchange they had about what makes one hateful and includes, according to the SBLC, Moms for Liberty, a group I absolutely love.
	I'm sure you love them too.
	Yeah, but listen to this.
	There are maybe 100 trans athletes.
	And to be clear, as an ex-Republican, I think they're only upset about trans kids who identify as girls.
	How do you explain the gap between the reality that there are less than 100 trans kids playing sports and the rise and the platforming of hatred?
	This is very much a coordinated effort.
	There are actually 12 anti-student inclusion groups in the country that are pushing to ban certain books, ban curricula, punish teachers who talk about inclusive education, and generally make our school boards miserable.
	Your reaction to that and the targeting of a group like Moms for Liberty.
	What's amazing is that if you took like an old school feminist from the 60s or 70s, they would be considered a hate, a person full of hatred for trying to promote biological women now.
	And when I talk about becoming more domestic, you know, returning to sort of these like timeless essential things that make us human, I'm not talking about returning women to like the medieval era.
	I'm talking about like things that were normal in the 1980s, you know, like these are not extremist views.
	And it's totally insane that just being a mom and choosing to opt out of what they want us to believe, that makes you a hater.
	That makes you a dangerous person.
	We're just trying to opt out.
	That's all we want.
	These labels, I mean, I laugh them off.
	It's absurd.
	And I think most reasonable people would know that.
	But I'll tell you, even when I was at NBC 2018, this group was pitched to me as well, well, the Southern Poverty Law Center says that they're extremist.
	And I remember running around saying, have you not been paying attention to the news for the past five years?
	Like they're the extremists.
	I am not citing the Southern Poverty Law Center in anything we do.
	So there are people, you know, in the news, never mind just lay people who have to go about their lives and live their lives without paying attention to this nonsense who might actually believe, oh, wait, Moms for Liberty?
	That's an extreme, that's a hate group.
	Okay, maybe we shouldn't invite them here.
	Maybe I shouldn't click on that video.
	Meanwhile, this is a collection of moms.
	I've been down there in Orlando, Florida, who decided to run for school board, who decided to stand up against the COVID craziness, who decided to stand up for biological girls and their rights.
	And now they've got to deal with these kinds of labels.
	I mean, it really is, it's dangerous.
	I mean, actually, they are the ones who inspired me to write this book and the title of my book.
	You know, during COVID, when we saw brave parents standing up to these school boards, and for the first time, people realized like, who the heck are these people on these school boards?
	Like, why are they, why do they get to dictate our kids' curriculum?
	Why are they putting, you know, really open pornography in elementary schools?
	And then when I saw that some of the parents who fought back were being labeled domestic terrorists by our government, I realized like we've gone like so far into crazy land.
	And so that's why the title is ironic.
	I mean, we're here kind of holding the normal line.
	And they have gone so far over to the left.
	And so that's why they have to call us extremists.
	They have to call us, you know, a hate group so they can normalize their own behavior, which we can all see is, is really out of bounds.
	You know, we're in the middle of Pride Month.
	It's never ending Pride.
	It's always Pride.
	It's Pride Month.
	It's Pride Hear, Pride Infinity.
	And some of these displays are normally like, look, I've been in New York for two decades.
	You go down to Chelsea on Halloween.
	You're going to see some nudity.
	You're going to see some debauchery like you've never seen.
	That's just the way it is.
	And I used to live there in Chelsea, so I know.
	Normally I don't care.
	But if you're going to bill your event as child friendly, which is what happened in West Hollywood the other day, and encourage children to show up and then behave like that you're about to see in the video I'm going to show you, you're going to get upset.
	You're going to get some moms upset, including Moms for Liberty, which no viewer warning, this is graphic.
	But this is what was strolling down the street in West Hollywood as part of their Pride Parade for the listening audience.
	You see a man in BDSM type bondage where another man is in front of him, bent over with a naked bottom and leather straps going up the crack.
	And the man in the back is purporting to whip him with some sort of feathers or light leather.
	I can't tell what it is over and over and over as the guy, the first guy sticks his naked butt out.
	And they're just, who the hell does this represent?
	Who gets away with calling this child friendly, Peachy?
	Yeah, it's funny.
	You know, I used to live in Chelsea also and I used to go to the Pride Parade.
	I mean, back in the day, they were not for kids and it was just kind of like a fun party.
	I didn't have a problem with it.
	No one's ever really had a problem with any of this stuff.
	No one's ever been protesting down at like gay bars in West Hollywood.
	Really, no one cared.
Inappropriate Sex Ed for Kids 00:10:14
	Everyone has been, you know, live and let live, even, you know, most conservatives.
	But this is, this is totally different.
	This is openly being promoted as for children.
	I think it started with like maybe when they brought, sort of bringing in the drag queens.
	And here's like Barbie Horns showing a Barbie float for the, for promoting the new movie, which I'm sure will appeal to children.
	Barbie off on Barbie.
	So I could see Barbie and a man's naked bottom getting whipped by another man.
	Keep going.
	Have they come out with a trans Barbie yet?
	Because if not, we know that's actually, I think they might have come out with a trans bargain.
	You know, that's where they're going.
	I mean, when you look at those pride parades, they really feel like this year they are, they're not pride parades, they're victory parades.
	I think they feel like they've won the culture war and now they're celebrating.
	And, you know, with good reason.
	I mean, they've gotten this ideology into every school.
	LAUSD, I think just yesterday, Los Angeles Unified School District, one of the largest in the country, just made it required that every single school in LA County must teach the LGBTQ agenda.
	Like not just during Pride Month.
	Everyone must celebrate it all the time.
	And there is no opting out.
	It's the opposite of what Ron DeSantis is doing, saying, you want to talk to your kids about being gay or lesbian?
	You want to talk to your kids about being trans and what that means?
	Do it.
	Do it all day long.
	But when they're sitting in school, no, we're going to focus on reading and writing and history and arithmetic and all the rest of it.
	And so he's been treated like a domestic extremist too.
	But yeah, so what you're saying is happening in LA is exactly the opposite.
	We will be in charge of forcing this information on your child.
	As you point out in your list of domestic extremes, we don't believe that parents are a child's primary authority and educators.
	We believe we, we are.
	And we've heard this from top Democrats over and over, right?
	They're everyone's children.
	They're all of our children.
	Yeah, it takes a village.
	You know, unfortunately, it's a village full of idiots and you need to get your kid out of there as fast as you can.
	I mean, here in California, Gavin Newsom, another wonderful law that I get to live under, I think he legalized what people are calling child kidnapping, where California is a sanctuary state for any parent, any child whose parents do not want them to transition.
	That child is welcome to do it here in California.
	Basically, like a magnet for confused children.
	And the parents have no legal say.
	And I'm pretty sure that's child kidnapping, but that's that, and that's not extreme.
	Like, what is what is going on here?
	Well, so here's the other thing.
	I mean, I agree with you.
	It's, it's beyond.
	Back when I was in school, you know, they used to have like sex ed, but it would be age appropriate.
	You know, you, you kind of got introduced to the concept of like menstruations coming when you were in fifth grade, which I think is fine.
	A lot of girls get their periods in sixth grade, so might as well get in there and start talking about.
	But we wouldn't have any talk about like sex at that young, young age.
	That would come later.
	That was eighth grade.
	And then you had to have a parental opt-in, you know, and then it got more explicit as you got older.
	And then sophomore year, they'd get a little bit more explicit on contraception and so on.
	Now, this is out of Hartford, Connecticut.
	There was a video that was shown a gender identity video that was shown to elementary school students, elementary school students there.
	And apparently the parents, even in liberal Connecticut, are mad because they say they were not told that this video was going to be shown and that the kids are too young.
	I think we have a snippet of it.
	Here's Sat 6.
	What pride means to me is just being myself and standing up for what I believe in.
	Pride means you should be able to be free.
	All my life, I never really felt like a boy and I don't really feel like a girl.
	So I'd rather be both.
	Pride means person could be whoever they want to be in their heart.
	The fact that I can say that I like to be called a boy makes me feel happy inside.
	Okay.
	So to single digit children, they're talking about being quote non-binary, that you don't have to be a boy or a girl.
	You can be both.
	That is, that is totally insane.
	And I mean, it just, it does seem to me that they are the transgender activists, this very small, but very vocal and extremely militant group has sort of taken everyone hostage.
	And they seem to be using children now as human shields for their ideology.
	Because if the kids are doing it, you know, none of us want to hurt kids.
	We're all pro-kid.
	And so the more kids they can get kind of into this sort of trans machine, then the less able we are to attack it or try to fight back because then we're fighting kids.
	We must hate children.
	And really, we're, you know, you and me and Ron DeSantis, we are child advocates and that makes us evil.
	And we, I mean, just, it is like a terrorist tactic to use a kid to promote your own personal beliefs on this sort of, you know, transgender ideology.
	I mean, how do we, how do we, how do we stop that?
	I mean, I think parents just, if that, if that's in your school, you have to pull your child out.
	You don't even have a choice anymore or you will lose your child.
	And this school is saying that that video is appropriate from two years old, two years and up appropriate.
	Hell no.
	And we, by the way, we got our hands on a picture that shows what was in the quote puberty kit that was being given to the young children.
	Boys and girls were given tampons and pads.
	What does a boy need a tampon and a pad for?
	And I don't know what that, what is that bottle over there on the left?
	I hope it's hand sanitizer and not lube.
	I don't know.
	But nothing's out of the back.
	Nothing's impossible in today's day and age.
	But this is where it is.
	So you can be both a boy and a girl.
	And here's your maxi pad for you little boys in the third grade.
	You know, I have a friend who sends a child to Brentwood School, which is a kind of a very elite private school here in Los Angeles.
	And part of the sixth grade sex ed curriculum includes a segment on black queer love.
	Okay.
	And these are 11-year-old boys and girls.
	Like, I don't even know what that means.
	And I think they are teaching them things that I can't even utter on the air with you.
	Sexual activities.
	They're showing them pictures.
	Anyone who's looked at like, this is in California Common Core Sex Ed.
	It's extremely graphic.
	It's basically pansexual.
	You can do anything with anyone.
	Yeah, as long as you use the things in the puberty kit, as long as you're using protection and enough lube, just have fun, kids.
	Right.
	It's actually just really damaging.
	I mean, I know that the boys who were subjected to this in this school were privately complaining that they were confused and they were mortified.
	This is embarrassing.
	You actually are inflicting discomfort and upset on kids who had none and who are not advanced by being handed a maxi pad as a 10-year-old boy, but actually just confused and upset by it.
	There's no care for those kids at all.
	You know, they don't like us to call them groomers, but I don't really know how else you could describe what they're doing.
	I mean, it's sort of like, you know, the old-fashioned groomers would hand a kid a dirty magazine and some candy, but now we're grooming them a different way to be confused.
	And the last thing that we need little boys to be confused on is the fact that they're boys.
	I mean, we have a, there is a war on boys.
	We have a problem with people thinking boys are, you know, toxic masculinity is a bad thing.
	Boys need to be more like girls.
	They need to be more feminized.
	And so the last thing in the world you would want to give a little boy is a tampon kit.
	I mean, I have, I have young sons.
	Like I can't even imagine how cringe that would be for them.
	They would just never, they would be so humiliated just to even know what that was for.
	What, what purpose could there be other than just to confuse these like very young, innocent minds?
	Oh, I have a friend whose mother worked at Planned Parenthood.
	My friend is, she's more right-leaning, but, you know, she's got that in her DNA.
	And when her kids were in their teens, she gave each one of them condoms.
	She's like, I don't know what's going to happen.
	And I just, whatever, I just want them to have it in case.
	And I think the one was 20 and he took it.
	The one was 18 and she called the mom disgusting.
	And the 16 year old was just kind of like, ew, you're gross.
	Like, right?
	So it's like the younger you get, the more these things make them uncomfortable, especially from a teacher or a parent.
	And I can't even imagine if it had been a sanitary pad, like a tampon.
	What the hell is he supposed to do with that?
	I do want to talk to you about, I loved your tweet.
	I love all of your tweets, but I really loved the one about LGBTQIA.
	We always cut off the end because it gets so ridiculous.
	Justin Trudeau with his like two spirit, blah, blah, blah.
	He could go on forever.
	But you picked up on something that really bothers me too, which is the A, L G B T Q I A.
	And what the hell is the A?
	You have figured it out and have feelings about it and I share them completely.
	Can you tell us?
	Yeah, so I was curious too.
	And the A stands for asexual, which means you're not having sex with anyone.
	You're not attracted to anyone.
	You basically don't have a sexual orientation.
	You're probably a man or a woman, or maybe you're whatever, but why is A there?
	What's A viewing?
	Why is A there?
	Yeah.
	You're not engaged in it.
	And the funniest thing is, I was researching the book and researching all these new gender identities.
	There's one I love called allosexual.
	And I am here to say that I'm an allosexual.
	I'm sure you are too, Megan, because an allosexual is the opposite of asexual.
	So it's to represent anyone who's ever experienced attraction to another person.
	So congratulations.
	You get your own diverse.
	So do I. We're diverse.
	Yes.
	Taste the rainbow.
	But I like to call myself a husbosexual because I made up my own, my own gender identity, okay?
Tinder Stories and Beliefs 00:09:20
	Because you can do that now.
	And a husbosexual means that I'm only attracted to people who identify as my husband.
	That works.
	I like that.
	It's a very healthy fetish you have.
	I appreciate it.
	Share that.
	Share that.
	My own family.
	I know.
	It's good to talk about some of the insanity with people who see it for what it is.
	And I think most people, I think most people on the left also see it for what it is.
	But then when you try to call it out, you get pieces written about you in the Washington Post calling out what a dangerous centrist white male you are, like Steve Krakow was telling us about earlier.
	All right.
	So all of this leads you to ultimately decide to write, to put pen to paper.
	And you're very clever, very funny.
	Your writing is, it just jumps off the page.
	It was a rip roaring read.
	So what is the point of the book?
	Like what, why are you writing it?
	And what is the message to people?
	Well, there's basically two reasons why I wrote the book.
	I mean, the main reason is that, you know, I am trying to build morale among people who are sort of already on our side, who are already sort of quasi-domestic extremists, people who are trying to resist all this stuff, normal people, your viewers, my readers.
	It's a way to build morale and let the people know, like, you're not alone.
	Like, you're right.
	Like, whatever you're doing, like, keep doing it.
	Like, double down.
	Lean into your, you know, your extremely domestic instincts.
	Those are all good things.
	You know, you're not a bad person.
	Like, we're, we're right.
	We're on the, we're on the right and we're going to win.
	And, but of course, the other reason is, you know, we have a huge crisis.
	You know, marriage rates are plummeting.
	Birth rates are plummeting.
	Rates of depression and loneliness are skyrocketing.
	And I mean, honestly, I think that this is due to just the victory, the victories that feminism has had and progressive ideology has had.
	It's convinced people to not start families, that being child-free, you know, you can't have kids.
	It will hurt the environment and kids that have a husband will slow you down.
	Well, they'll interfere with your career.
	So I am hoping to maybe try to peel off some of those young women and young men before they get completely like caught up in it and encourage them to be just a little more domestic.
	I know you, you, you say it's not enough now, given these culture wars, to not be a feminist.
	You, men and women, must become anti-feminists.
	So what do you mean by that?
	Yeah, I mean, you know, people say like, do you mean that women shouldn't be able to work?
	Like shouldn't be able to vote?
	Like, of course not.
	I'm a working mother.
	I have always supported myself.
	I mean, I stayed home when I, when I started having kids, obviously, but I believe in women's equality.
	I believe women should be able to vote and have a voice.
	I mean, obviously, here I am.
	Here you are.
	That's very important.
	But what I think about anti-feminism is that the new wave of feminism, the latest wave of feminism is just has sort of jumped the shark.
	You know, it's no longer about equality.
	It's no longer about, you know, being able to do what you want.
	Now it's about depriving you of your femininity, depriving you, you know, forcing you to sort of reject the things that actually make you a woman and make you just innately female.
	You know, work forever, freeze your eggs, don't get married.
	I mean, this is what feminism is telling young women to do.
	Get on Tinder, stay on Tinder for 10 years.
	You know, I wrote about the Tinder app.
	It had its 10-year anniversary.
	And there are some women who downloaded the app the day it came out and 10 years later are still on Tinder.
	And according to the feminists today, that's totally fine.
	No, it's sad.
	It's sad.
	It is sad.
	I mean, no man is going to marry the woman who's given it away to everybody.
	Nobody wants to go there.
	My God.
	I mean, that's not attractive.
	And men like to conquer.
	And if you're just utterly conquerable with absolutely no challenge, they're not going to be coming back for the second go-round.
	I mean, you need to pay attention.
	There's a way to land a husband and that ain't it.
	The giving it up for free on Tinder, like, hey, yeah, here I am again, ready to have you.
	If you did it with me, how many other guys you do it with?
	That's how men think and they're not wrong.
	Right.
	And, you know, like women are now even posting on TikTok about their body counts, you know, the very long lists of all of their sexual partners.
	And it becomes like, it's like a game, like who can have the most?
	Because that means you're hot or you're desirable or whatever.
	And, you know, that lady, no one is pushing.
	It means you're a slut.
	That's what it means.
	You're a slut.
	That's right.
	And there's nothing good that comes from being a slut.
	Talk to Bridget Fettesy.
	She wrote the definitive piece on it.
	I love Bridget.
	Yep.
	Right person in that department.
	And she was very honest about how what she was after when she was having promiscuous sex and how empty and sad she would feel time after time.
	And the guys weren't calling and it was pathetic.
	She felt pathetic and how she turned it around.
	But it's like, you're right, because the line from the feminists is, it's empowering to go on Tinder and just be able to have sex like the way 18 year old guys want to have sex, just with everything that moves.
	And it's not.
	We're built differently.
	It's what young, some young men in college might find empowering will not feel the same to young women.
	They've been sold a bag of goods.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I love that essay.
	I talked about it in the book, Bridget's essay, I regret being a slut.
	You know, we all, I think, have our own degree of regrets.
	I certainly do before I kind of had my change of heart and realized that my vocation, my calling was really as a devoted wife and mother.
	But I think that the message to little girl, to young women is to increase, that there won't be any consequences to increasing their body counts.
	And really, there are consequences.
	Women are not, like you said, we're not built like men.
	You know, you may not get pregnant from an encounter, but there are emotional scars.
	There are, there's bitterness, there's heartbreak.
	And at the end of the day, if you've spent your 20s kind of wasting your best years on a string of young men who don't love you, they don't remember your name the next morning.
	How are you going to be someone's wife?
	You know, how can you then shift so dramatically to being monogamous?
	I think it makes all of that so much harder.
	And you're making yourself less attractive.
	Like, I want these women to go back.
	Go back.
	I'd love it, you know, to the younger me who, trust me, before I got to the Fox News hair and makeup department, I did not look like this.
	So I was okay, but I was nothing to write home about.
	Trust me.
	My parents used to say she's going to be with us for a long time.
	And I was happy because I love them.
	I wanted to be with them.
	But anyway, my point is, you know, Bridget and I had a long discussion about this on this podcast.
	We did.
	We'll get you the number because it's well worth listening to.
	But I was honest with her about how I actually don't have any regrets about my behavior in this sex department.
	And she had many.
	And we talked about how we both wound up in very different places about it.
	And it wound up leading to, I had very different parents than she did.
	I had a very different upbringing than she did.
	And I was just in a different mental space.
	But I am very happy that even in my far less attractive shell, I never gave it up easily.
	Never.
	I always felt like only a very few will deserve me.
	And no one's getting it until they absolutely prove that they deserve me and that I love this person and this person loves me.
	And it's not some superficial, like we've been together for a week and we feel really hot for each other.
	And I realize you can make the case for that kind of sex.
	I get it.
	I, at this point in my life, am very happy that I approached it.
	And I want young women to know this is an available lane for you too.
	You don't, I realize waiting till marriage is an option.
	That's great.
	That's what my faith in yours teaches.
	Wait.
	There's another lane where you can be very judicious in your selections and keep it to people who, you know, you deeply care about or love.
	And I would suggest to you that will only build self-esteem.
	It will only build your suitors.
	It will only make men want you more, not less.
	And going the other route gives you exactly the opposite results of the ones you most desire.
	Yeah, you know, I'm a victim of the show Sex in the City.
	I remember telling my mother, I'm moving to New York and she was, she herself said verbatim, it'll just, it'll be just like sex in the city.
	You know, looking back, like, wait, what, what, what was she expecting me to do?
	Like live like Samantha?
	You know, how expected?
	Yeah, the shoes, the shoes were going to be paved with Manola Blonics.
	Okay.
	That's what we all thought.
	And luckily after I moved to New York, I met my husband like literally a week later.
	So I was saved from that horrible fate.
	But yeah, the message was when I was in college that you can, you know, hook up with whoever and it won't matter.
	And I remember thinking like, maybe something's wrong with me because I don't really have, I have no interest in doing that with someone who I know doesn't care about me, who I maybe think is cute, but I know he doesn't like, he's not in love with me, you know, and I wasn't romantic.
	I wanted someone to like fall in love with.
	And I thought something was like deficient about me because I wasn't able to just sort of like be like one of the guys and just, you know, do whoever was around and there would be no, no problem.
	I didn't like that feeling.
	And that's a very natural feeling.
	And that keeps us safe, actually, that feeling.
	And women have been told to ignore that little voice inside their head.
	Yes, you're so right.
	It's so damaging thanks to the feminists.
	So Steve Krakauer tells me that the original episode we did with Bridget, which is very emotional, I have to say, I remember that one very vividly, was episode 44 right after we launched.
Safe Choices and Judgment 00:10:55
	She's another person I met via Twitter.
	And the episode in which we talk about her, why I regret being a slot is episode 402.
	If you're taking a drive or something, those recommend both of those to you.
	You'll love Bridget just as much as we do.
	More with Peachy right after this quick break.
	One of the, you know, I'm not going to say I cried, but it did hit a nerve in a good way, like in an important way, was the piece about motherhood in the crosshairs and about this, the secret, the unmentionable secret about babies.
	They want to be with their mother, like all the time.
	That's the truth.
	And I know, you know, as you say, you've been a working mom and now you're home with your kids.
	But look, I defend working mothers.
	Of course, I am one.
	But I'd be lying if I didn't say I had moments, especially after the birth of my third child, where I was under pressure to go right back because we were about to launch my primetime show, that it was too soon and that he needed me.
	And I would just bring him a lot to work.
	And I'd put his little body on this little sort of couch in my office and he'd sleep.
	And I'd think, this is, this feels wrong.
	I would be lying if I didn't say I had many of those moments.
	And it's okay to talk about.
	It's not abandoning your choice, your choices in life, you know, your commitment to work, whatever.
	But it's important because those babies do need their mamas.
	Yeah.
	And it's, it's funny.
	Even though let's say you have to go back to work and you have to leave your child, just because you have to do it doesn't mean that it's the best way to do it or that it's good for anyone.
	It's, it's a hard thing to do.
	But as a woman, you're not allowed to talk about that because that makes it, you're kind of like betraying the sisterhood.
	You're betraying the girl boss, you know, sisterhood.
	How dare you prioritize your newborn over your job?
	And we fought so hard for the right to get back to work.
	Now you want to give all that up.
	And so, you know, if you have to do it, at least we can start talking honestly about what the effect of that is.
	I mean, yes, there's a cost to like, you know, taking off more unpaid leave, but there's also a cost emotionally to a new mother and a baby.
	Yes, I just had this debate online.
	Somebody had tweeted out something like it was a guy.
	I think he's with Babylon B, which I love.
	And he tweeted out something about how he loves having a stay-at-home mom as his wife and how the house is great and people are really happy and like it really does lead to good things.
	And it irked me slightly because there was in there, I felt a bit of judgment on moms who make a different choice, like moms like me, right?
	Who work and have kids.
	And I tweeted out something in response like, I'm a working mom.
	We're doing effing great, something like that.
	Because this is where I object, where there's like a judgment that people who choose to do it a different way have done it wrong, you know, because I look at my own kids.
	I've been working since all of them were born.
	They're great.
	I mean, anybody would back me up on how well adjusted and happy my children are, how intact our family relationships are, how tight we are.
	And there's a reason for that.
	One is I've nurtured it, you know, the relationships.
	And two is I did dial it back.
	You know, I didn't get too far into this experiment without saying, oh, holy shit, the balance is the wrong way.
	And I'm spending too much time away from them.
	And that's not good enough for any of us.
	So I, you know, I also did make an adjustment when I recognized I was too far on the other side in doing the balance of work and motherhood.
	You know, that's true for a lot of women.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you know, I think that, you know, liberals love to talk about being pro-choice.
	And I think that women should get also get the choice to spend more time with their children if they want to.
	I mean, I understand like we live in the real world.
	People have to work.
	I earn a living.
	I get it.
	But we can all agree at least that, you know, spending more time with a baby is better as a mother than spending less time.
	And that's just, you know, that's just like stark biology.
	That's just like, you know, that's just like, you know, trust the science.
	That is the science.
	And being able to acknowledge that openly and really then respect the sacrifice that women who do work and who have to spend time away from their children are making.
	I mean, they do not get that respect.
	And I don't want to judge working mothers.
	Like I said, I have always been a working mother, a working woman.
	Since I had a bunch of kids, I worked from home.
	When my then four-year-old, four-year-old was in preschool, I got an offer to go back into the office at a very large entertainment company.
	And, you know, I would get a little bit sad when women, young women would come in after having a baby and they drop their six-week old off at a daycare and pump in these like weird lactation rooms.
	And my sister was a lawyer and she had to pump milk in the bathroom stall at her law firm, you know, and those things are not conducive to anyone's health.
	I remember being out in Iowa for the Iowa caucuses with the breast pump.
	I was on the air for like 10 hours one night because they lost the ballots in some truck.
	I know, Brett Bear and I never got off the air and my breasts were like, they were, they were hurt.
	And I finally got out of there and, you know, you had to use the breast pump.
	And then poor Abby, I'm like, Abby, she's running around my breast milk.
	She's has the weirdest resume of anybody in America.
	She had a planned birthday party for a dog.
	Carry the breast milk.
	I hope for everybody out there that you get an Abby in your life because it makes all life choices easy.
	I need one.
	Yeah, you do.
	Everyone needs one.
	But yeah, so you have a chapter, part three.
	It's actually more than a chapter.
	What winning looks like?
	What winning look like?
	What does winning look like?
	That's a great question.
	Everyone wants to know, you know, this is a practical guide to winning the culture war.
	So like, how do we win?
	And how soon can we win?
	And everybody wants this to be won, you know, next Tuesday.
	And what I try to tell people is like, yes, I absolutely think we're going to win.
	I think we're seeing a big counterrevolution, a big pushback against the left just like, you know, accelerating all these things.
	People are finally having, having, have had enough and they're finally standing up.
	But winning will require a few more of us to kind of remove themselves from mainstream American culture and the sort of like mainstream lifestyle they want us to live, which are no longer mainstream.
	We're going to have to kind of win over a few converts to our side and encourage people to, yes, get married like in your 20s, literally, like start a family a little bit younger.
	Maybe don't stop at two kids.
	Maybe add a third kid if you're able to have children, you know, just solely by slowly by sure and surely we will win.
	It's just, they had a hundred year head start on us and we're just really getting started now.
	So it's going to be a long term, a long-term battle.
	But yeah, I think we are going to win.
	It's funny because I was just talking to Doug, my husband, about the gender madness.
	And there was the doctor was basically saying, my kids are getting to that point where the doctor wants to have like the solo consultation with them.
	I had that.
	I think, right.
	They want to find out if the kid's having sex or, you know, on drugs without mom sitting there, which I get.
	That's fine.
	And Doug was saying to me, well, what if, you know, what if they start like asking, are you sure you're a girl?
	Are you sure you're a boy?
	And I laugh at my husband, like, I'm pretty sure our kids are perfectly inoculated against that particular drug.
	They'll be good, but it does require effort.
	Parents, understanding that the school systems, nine times out of 10, are against you.
	And if you're not homeschooling, you got to start working on inoculating your kid, not just against the trans madness, but the race shaming that they do.
	The, you know, my, my kids at my old school in New York City, my boys were forced to write essays and why they're feminists, which I know you understand is not good, given what you write about feminism in the book and which we partially discuss.
	But you really have to keep them alert to all these things.
	Yeah.
	I mean, you have to be careful.
	You have to tell your preschooler, your little boy, you know, don't touch the pink crayons, you know, because they might be scouting.
	They're looking for people for boys who might be a little bit feminine.
	You know, don't draw a picture of a flower.
	I mean, it's gone crazy.
	But like you said, that actually happened to me at our pediatrician's office.
	It was my 16-year-old son's checkup, and he was literally like in his basketball uniform.
	He works out.
	It's very, very obvious that he is a boy.
	Okay.
	And the pediatrician kicked me out of the room.
	This is before I knew this, what happened, and now I don't let them do that anymore.
	She kicked me out of the room and she asked him, are you comfortable with your gender?
	Oh my God.
	So it really did go there.
	It really happened.
	I like that was verbatim.
	And then she told me to tell them about safe sex.
	All right.
	I mean, safe sex, I get like that's okay.
	Maybe they don't want to talk.
	But that's interesting.
	It really did happen with the gender thing.
	It was even when I was there, some of the questions were, and my daughter's 12, you know, she's sweet, she's young, but they were like, how many times in the last two weeks have you felt alone and like there's no hope?
	And my daughter goes, what?
	She has no clue.
	I'm like, yards, she's trying to figure out whether you're depressed.
	She's like, I'm not depressed.
	Okay, move on.
	But they're very probative now.
	They wanted to know if we had a gun in the home.
	We've done stories about that.
	But man, those pediatricians, they're all up in your business.
	Yeah, it's very, I had a very interesting conversation the last time I was there because the questionnaires have been getting more and more detailed.
	Like you said, these mental health questionnaires.
	You know, there was like a dropdown list of different genders for my six-year-old daughter to choose from, intersex and, you know, everything.
	And like, they know she's a girl.
	And it does feel like they're kind of like probing for weak spots in a kid where they could offer you a prescription for something.
	Maybe you're depressed.
	Maybe you need ADHD medication, you know, and it's just this sort of feels like this process of chipping away at the parents' common sense.
	It's important.
	It's good you're calling attention to this, like all these issues, because some aspects of your life may have a red flag on them and you don't know it.
	You need you need somebody to alert you to the fact that this is, this is an indoctrination thing.
	Pay attention.
	And this is part of the prescription offered in Domestic Extremist.
	What's the subtitle again?
	I love the subtitle.
	Hold on.
	A practical guide to winning the culture war.
	Yes, we all need that.
	PG, it's so nice to meet you.
	I hope this is the first of many.
	Thank you so much, Megan.
	I'm a huge fan.
	Such a pleasure to be here.
	Oh, thank you.
	All right.
	Don't forget, buy it now.
	Domestic Extremist, a practical guide to winning the culture war.
Chad Moore Red Flags 00:00:25
	Tomorrow we have an interesting guest, Chad with Moore, the Tucker Carlson biographer.
	And we will have an update on what's happening with Tucker Carlson and Fox News.
	So don't miss that.
	Chad with Moore will be here tomorrow, which is Thursday.
	My God, it's Wednesday already.
	Here we go.
	Thank you so much for listening.
	Thanks for listening to the Megan Kelly Show.
	No BS, no agenda, and no

Chapters

00:00:20 CNN's Ego and Lost Trust
00:15:35 Cleaning House at News Nation
00:28:05 Title IX Case Opportunities
00:43:34 False Starts in Sports Categories
00:50:53 Moms Liberty Hate Group Labels
01:05:57 Inappropriate Sex Ed for Kids
01:16:12 Tinder Stories and Beliefs
01:25:32 Safe Choices and Judgment
01:36:28 Chad Moore Red Flags